Sitting of 27 July 1989

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ISLE OF WIGHT BILL
  INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)
  ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL(By Order)
  HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
  NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)
  Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  To be considered on Thursday 19 October.
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 October.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords](By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read. To be further considered on Thursday 19 October.
  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords](By Order)
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords](By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL[Lords] (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL(CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 19 October.
  HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  QUEEN MARY AND WEST FIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords](By Order)
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 19 October.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL[Lords] (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pesticides
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to ensure the safety of pesticides used in agriculture.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Under legislation introduced by this Government pesticides are banned for use unless approved on the basis of independent scientific advice. Once approved they may be used only as specified in their approval.
    Mr. Thurnham: First, I welcome my hon. Friend to his new office. Will he begin his new responsibilities by ordering a review of the way in which pesticides are approved—both new and older products, some of which may be taken for granted—so that the public may have full confidence in the approval system, knowing that the best scientific evidence is used?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is only three years since we introduced the new statutory arrangements, which are among the best in the world for approving pesticides. We have a continual review system, and if there is any problem, the pesticides concerned are called in for review. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides is recognised as offering the best scientific advice in the world.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that I have made several representations to the Ministry over the past year or so on behalf of people in Sheffield and in South Yorkshire generally, who are worried about a possible linkage between their water supplies—25 per cent. of which are drawn from the Derwent—and the use of pesticides, as well as nitrates, on the Vale of York? Their anxieties have heightened during the summer. Will the Minister comment?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly look into the hon. Gentleman's point. Responsibility for the quality of the water supply rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I shall be

    1157
    delighted to consider the matter to establish whether there is any agricultural involvement—in which case I may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, where raspberries are grown substantially to serve the needs of Europe, the Government have shown great understanding in their handling of the dinoseb problem? The costs involved have been phased over a year, and the Government are also giving grubbing-out assistance, so that fresh varieties other than Glen Clova can be planted. All that shows how sensibly the Government tackled the problems.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We are delighted to assist, where we can, by ensuring that the safest possible use is made of pesticides while at the same time not damaging or destroying the agricultural industry, which has the prime responsibility for ensuring that the nation has good, safe and wholesome food at a reasonable price.
    Dr. David Clark: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome and congratulate the new Ministers and I hope that they have a rewarding time at the Dispatch Box. We shall make sure that they work hard at making certain that the British public is protected.
    Concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House about the review of old pesticides. Some pesticides are as much as 40 years old, yet it may be another 10 years before they are reviewed. Is the Minister aware that no new and, one would hope, safe pesticides have been approved under the new scheme because of a lack of resources? Will he examine the problem to ensure that public health and the environment are better protected than they are at present?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for their kind words.
    I am, of course, aware of concern that pesticides are not being reviewed quickly enough, but I do not accept its validity. I have no evidence to suggest that the Department is being tardy in its attitude to the review. We are considering the matter of resources and recruiting scientists to continue the work of the review. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about any pesticides, and if he draws his concern to our attention, we shall pull the pesticides concerned forward for instant review. Pesticides are reviewed under an ongoing programme, and we are determined to ensure that there is no tardiness.

    Animals (Drugs)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that purchasers of animal-based products are able to obtain information on the drugs given to the animals.
    Mr. Maclean: Such a step is not practicable. The Government believe that the way to protect the consumer is to ensure that no residues are present in food at levels that are harmful to health.
    Mr. Stern: I join my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post.
    1158
    Does my hon. Friend agree that there is reason for concern among people in the Bristol area, for example, when they hear that a preparation of which they previously knew nothing, such as BST—bovine somatotropin—is being fed to cows on an experimental basis? It is not that they believe that an active attempt being made to do them harm but that they are not told that such experiments are taking place. How can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
    There is no question of testing drugs in the manner that my hon. Friend suggests, and then giving the milk products of those cows to the public. Bovine somatotropin is not a drug but a naturally occurring hormone. I suggest that my hon. Friend tells his constituents that, since time began, every cow has had BST naturally occurring in its system. Synthetic BST is no different from the naturally occurring hormone, and it would be inappropriate to label milk products, because such labelling could be misleading. BST is a natural hormone.
    Mr. Livsey: I, too, congratulate the agriculture team on its appointment. Will the Minister comment on the ban that has been imposed by the EC as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Britain when the mainland continent of Europe cannot test for or identify the disease?
    Mr. Maclean: The only comment that I would make is that that ban applies only to animals born before 18 July 1988. We continually keep the matter under review and we are happy to comply with EEC standards on all aspects of animal health and safety.
    Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister had time to study the minutes of his veterinary products committee? If so, will he confirm that the April and May meetings of that committee received an application for a product licence for BST by Elanco which it has not granted on grounds of health doubts for humans and animals?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I have not had a chance in the past 24 hours to study that minute among the other documents that I have been reading. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall study it and write to him with a detailed reply.

    Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food when he last met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have met the RSPB on a number of occasions in the past and I look forward with great pleasure to renewing my acquaintance.
    Mr. Marland: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where we look forward to him carrying on the good work of his predecessor.
    My right hon. Friend may be aware that, while studying alternative land uses, the Select Committee on Agriculture recently visited the flow countries, where we met representatives of the RSPB. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that at his next meeting with the RSPB he will

    1159
    encourage it to have a slightly broader vision than did its representatives whom we met in Caithness, who seemed to be 100 per cent. opposed to any further development of those vast tracts of land, whether for forestry or agriculture, because they felt that it would disturb a few rare species of birds?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I suppose that we would both agree that an organisation set up to protect birds would tend to go on about birds. However, I agree that we must take into account a range of matters when we make decisions. I much welcome the work done by the RSPB on behalf of birds, but in the end we have to achieve a balance between the perfectly proper demands that such conservation makes upon us and the demands for jobs and for preserving the countryside. There are often different tensions, even between conservation organisations. In the end, the Government must hold the ring and make the decisions, and I agree that they must be made impartially.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that when he next meets the RSPB one issue that it will be particularly worried about is the state of Britain's hedgerows? Does he accept that, if hedgerows are to be stockproof and to provide a good habitat for birds, they need, in agricultural terms, to have a good bottom and to be laid regularly? Does he accept that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be doing far more to encourage farmers to maintain their hedges in a stockproof state rather than relying on strands of barbed wire to join up trees in outgrown hedges?
    Mr. Gummer: I have considerable sympathy with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's question. I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when we stopped paying people to grub up hedges. I was pleased when we started to pay people to lay and look after them properly and I shall keep that support under review. Hedgerows are of great importance and I agree that we need proper hedgerows, not ones with strips of barbed wire, wherever that can be avoided.
    Mr. Michael Brown: First, may I very warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elevation to the Cabinet. I ask him to pass on to his Parliamentary Secretaries, who will ably support him, my warmest congratulations. He has a superb team and I am sure that agriculture will benefit from this marvellous team. I also ask my right hon. Friend to remember that the RSPB has welcomed the farm woodlands scheme, which it says will be a lifeline for birds.
    Mr. Gummer: It has certainly been extremely supportive of the farm woodlands scheme. I found the regular meetings that I initiated with the RSPB when I was Minister of State to be valuable and I hope that we shall continue those meetings.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Has the RSPB raised with the Minister the Government's failure to protect British wildlife from deliberate and illegal killing? Will the Minister confirm that in the past eight years, there have been about 200 cases of deliberate killing of raptors by the illegal use of pesticides and that for those 200 incidents there were only four prosecutions? Is he aware that the position has been made considerably worse this year because in the
    1160
    grouse-rearing areas of England, all the nesting pairs of hen harriers, a bird that merits special protection under the EC birds directive, have been deliberately killed? Will the Minister forcefully condemn the actions of those responsible? Will he remind the landowners concerned of their legal responsibility and will he review the actions of his Ministry to ensure that the law is adequately and rigorously enforced?
    Mr. Gummer: The RSPB has not so far drawn that to my attention, but I am happy to discuss the matter with it when we meet. I am also happy to condemn forcefully anyone who breaks the law, especially in the areas of sensitivity about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. I cannot, of course, necessarily support all that the hon. Gentleman said, but I suggest to him that the Government's actions on pesticides generally and some of the actions that I hope to announce later today will comfort him very much. I am also happy to examine again the problem to which he refers, and if further action is needed to toughen up the reactions of the Ministry, I shall be happy to take it.

    Conifers
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the effect of his announcement after the 1988 Budget that approval for large-scale conifer planting in the uplands of England would not normally be given; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: It is too early to say. However, in the four years before the announcement, less than 650 hectares of land was planted with conifers in the whole of England. Some two thirds of that planting was in upland areas.
    Mr. Davis: May I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his return to the Dispatch box at an appropriately elevated level. May I point out to him that the Council for the Protection of Rural England and I, as somebody who walks in the beautiful uplands of Britain, welcome the Government's decision? Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the proposal of the Countryside Commission to plant large areas of forest in urban fringe areas? That will provide amenities and an environmentally sensitive mix of trees for those who live in towns and inner villages.
    Mr. Gummer: I agree that the Countryside Commission's action is to be welcomed. It began to discuss this about a year ago. It has developed the proposal, arid the first forest will begin to be planted soon. This is a major innovation which shows that Britain is leading the world in many areas of conservation. The scheme will bring back to parts of the country that have missed out on the countryside for a long time some of the amenities that many of us are lucky enough to experience near at hand where we live.
    Mr. Morley: I welcome the new appointments to the Agriculture Front Bench, but I shall judge Ministers on their actions before I comment on their countryside policy. I hope that they will make changes. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Forestry Commission on its new landscape design proposals, which are a response to criticism levelled at forestry in the uplands for some years? Does the Minister agree that an area such as the flow

    1161
    country is important not only because of the rare birds who live there—it contains some of the most important species in Europe—but because it is a habitat that is unique in western Europe? Planting trees on that land destroys the peat layer for ever. There is no going back once land has been ploughed up and planted on. Does the Minister agree that steps need to be taken to protect precious areas which are of international importance?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to tempt me into areas looked after by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am happy to support what he said about the Forestry Commission's decisions on landscape, although I do not think that they were a response to criticism, as the hon. Gentleman rather negatively suggested. Those decisions show how much the Forestry Commission has been doing to develop its plans, and we should welcome not only the new plans but the new chairman who will take over at the end of September.

    Eggs
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of imported eggs have been impounded by his Department over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Maclean: In the 12 months to May 1989, 20,812 boxes of 360 eggs were inspected for compliance with egg marketing standards regulations. None was impounded.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that egg imports into the United Kingdom trebled between January and April this year, largely because of housewives' continuing lack of confidence in the quality of British eggs? In view of the continuing problem of salmonella in eggs, what action do he and his Department intend to take to improve quality control of egg imports?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not have the figures for egg imports with me, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that egg exports have increased in the past few months because foreign countries have great confidence in the rigorous quality standards in Britain following the salmonella outbreaks. The standards that we impose for salmonella testing at the ports are among the most rigorous in the world and everyone in this country should have perfect confidence that we can detect any salmonella coming into the country through eggs. One consignment was detected and we took the matter up with our opposite numbers in the EEC.
    Mrs. Gorman: While my hon. Friend is on the learning curve of his new post, will he ask his officials to confirm that an egg is an anaerobic capsule designed by nature to keep out germs and that unless the eggshell is cracked or the semi-permeable membrane disturbed an egg cannot contain enough of any kind of bacteria to make one ill? All this stuff and nonsense worrying people about eggs comes under the heading of "poppycockus hystericus" and the public should be told, after my hon. Friend's officials have confirmed it, that a freshly cooked egg is perfectly healthy, whether it is English or foreign.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes her points in he own inimitable way. Although I have not had a briefing on this matter yet, I understand that eggs are porous and that it is not true to suggest that eggshells are completely
    1162
    impermeable to contamination. Part of the problem with the salmonella outbreak is that invasive salmonella involves transovarian transmission, whereby the disease is transmitted from the bird through the ovary into the egg.
    Mr. Alton: At what levels do egg consumption and production now stand, following the complaints made by the hon. Gentleman's former ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), about the possibility of salmonella poisoning? Does he agree that what is needed is a Minister who is seen to protect the interests of consumers, who continue to lack confidence in the food available in our supermarkets?
    Mr. Maclean: I understand that egg consumption is up to more than 80 per cent. of its former level. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that he would judge us by our actions, and I assure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr Alton) that he will be happy to reach the conclusion that our actions will be in the best interests of consumers in this country.

    Channel Cod Quota
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Channel cod quota.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We have pressed hard for an increase in the Channel cod total allowable catch for this year. The Commission's recent proposal, based on scientific advice, for a small increase from 23,900 tonnes to 24,600 tonnes has just been confirmed. We have also secured agreement that the Community's scientific and technical committee should carry out a further review of the total allowable catch.
    Mr. Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend and former colleague in the European Parliament on his new appointment. With regard to Channel cod, does my hon. Friend appreciate that although any increase in the quota is helpful, there is nevertheless deep disappointment among our fishermen that the increase is so small? Will he bring his skills and knowledge of Europe into play to continue the battle for a larger quota of Channel cod and has he any proposals for better management of the quota?
    Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and reminiscences. I appreciate that fishermen are bound to be disappointed. In response to my hon. Friend's question about the management of the quota, I am considering dividing the quota for Channel cod between vessels of more than 10 m in length and those below 10 m. That would apply immediately if I take that decision. I am also aware of the pressure to extend licensing to vessels below 10 m and I am actively considering—my hon. Friend will be aware of the significance of the adverts—whether to extend licensing from vessels of 10 m registered length to vessels of 10 m overall length, which would bring the most blatant of the so-called rule beaters under control, and I am treating a decision on those questions as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Tony Banks: At Environment Question Time yesterday we had a discussion about the amount of raw sewage being dumped in the seas around our shores. As a

    1163
    lover of cod and chips, may I ask what the Prime Minister has done to ensure that cod are not landed as nothing more than reprocessed turds?
    Mr. Curry: While the hon. Gentleman was discussing that yesterday, I was mugging up on fish. We are vigilant about the quality of the fish that is landed and we are determined to try to increase the cod quota so that British housewives can enjoy more cod and that all cod that is landed, either from British boats or from imports, should be subject to a levy which will help to promote that quite excellent fish.
    Mr. Hill: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his promotion to his new position on the Government Front Bench. I am sure that he will do an extremely good job. My hon. Friend will realise that the theme that was jokingly introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is quite serious. My hon. Friend and the Ministry are responsible for licensing procedures in respect of the Channel areas where sewage or sewage sludge is dumped. Will he keep a close eye on the situation and monitor what is happening as the Southern Fisheries Association is extremely concerned about the almost unbridled issuing of licences to the Southern water authority?
    Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I understand that the licensing process is carefully controlled, but I give my hon. Friend a clear guarantee that we shall reinforce the controls and I shall be particularly vigilant.

    Sea Fish Industry Authority
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Curry: I am looking forward to meeting the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority at an early and mutually convenient time.
    Mr. Cohen: Given the authority's role in fish farming research, should it not be looking into pollution research? Will the Minister take steps to stop the misuse of chemicals and pesticides in fish farms and ban the use of Nuvan 500 EC?
    Mr. Curry: I am certainly not prepared to guarantee that I will ban a product until I have had a chance to investigate the case.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister does not know what it is.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that I do not know what it is, and I confirm his impression. However, I will take steps to find out very quickly. If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would like to forward any particular evidence to me, I will examine it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Macdonald: I add my personal welcome to the Minister with his new responsibilities and I hope that he will be a wee bit more sympathetic than his predecessor was to some of our concerns. When he next meets the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, will he discuss with him, and with the Department of Agriculture
    1164
    and Fisheries for Scotland, the need closely to monitor nephrops stocks in the Minch fisheries off the north-west coast of Scotland, where there is increasing pressure due to east coast fishermen coming over as a result of the quota cuts that they have suffered? Will the Minister undertake to monitor prawn stocks off the west coast and introduce quotas if necessary?
    Mr. Curry: I will certainly undertake that that should be on the agenda, and I will certainly discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Dr. Godman: I, too, welcome the new Ministers to their posts. I only hope that we can maintain the civilised relationship that we experienced with their predecessors. In that regard, I offer my compliments in public to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) for the many affable courtesies that he showed to me during his tenure of office.
    When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, will he discuss with that gentleman the urgent need to introduce a sensible decommissioning scheme? Does he agree that many middle-aged fishermen around the British coastline would happily and willingly tie up their middle-aged or elderly vessels for the last time if such a scheme were in operation? Is it not the case that, with regard to European Community obligations vis-a-vis the multi-annual guidance programme, the United Kingdom fishing fleet has to shed some 600 to 800 fishing vessels? How will that be brought about in the absence of a sensible decommissioning scheme?
    Mr. Curry: I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), who I thought was an excellent Minister and responsible for many personal kindnesses to hon. Members.
    Decommissioning is a somewhat less easy matter than the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. It is one of the options that I am now reviewing. The hon. Gentleman is right that the multi-annual guidance programme sets Community targets to apply by 1991. He will be aware, however, that since that target was set two years ago there has been a significant expansion in the fishing fleet. That has been done with public money. I am therefore bound to pay careful attention to whether I wish to decommission with public money a fleet that was built up with public money. However, it is one of the matters that I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I am aware of the importance of the issue.

    Dioxin
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum permitted concentration of dioxin in common foods; and what is the dioxin content of mother's milk.
    Mr. Maclean: There are no maximum permitted levels set for the dioxin content of foods. Work carried out at my Ministry's food science laboratory shows the dioxin content of mothers' milk to be approximately 1 nanogram—that is, one thousand millionth of a gram—per kilogram.
    Mr. Williams: Given that dioxin has been responsible for more than 4,000 children in the United States being born with severe congenital abnormalities due to Vietnam veterans having been exposed to agent orange, given the toxicity of dioxin, and given that dioxin enters the human body mainly through our food, what do the Government intend to do to tackle the problem of dioxin in food and in the environment?
    Mr. Maclean: There can be no comparison between people sprayed with dioxin in Vietnam and dioxin levels in mothers' milk. We had a survey carried out in seven European countries and in three other countries which showed that dioxin levels were all comparable and very low. The reference level is 1 picogram, which is one millionth millionth of a gramme. The hon. Gentleman must be careful not to suggest that there is a serious problem. I accept entirely, and repeat, the advice of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health that breast milk is still the safest and best means of feeding a baby. There is no problem with dioxin.
    Mr. Boswell: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench and I welcome his last response. Will he confirm that instead of spreading scare stories the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) should be paying tribute to the skill of the scientists in their ability to detect such minuscule quantities, to the strength of the regulatory system and to our readiness to publish this information which shows, contrary to the opinions of the Opposition, that there is no danger in breast milk either in Europe or in the Third world?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right. We have some of the best scientists in the world. As I said to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), we have carried out studies in Europe. It is wrong to suggest that there is a serious problem with dioxin in breast milk when we are talking of levels of one thousand millionth or one million millionth of a gramme.

    Slaughter of Animals
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to introduce measures to ameliorate the suffering of animals during slaughter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: On 20 June the Government issued, for public consultation, proposals for additional important welfare measures.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why have only 18 of the 100 recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council been implemented, as they related to examples of extreme cruelty in Britain's slaughterhouses? Will FMC in Wiltshire be prosecuted as a journalist on The Sunday Times was a witness to cruelty in that slaughterhouse? What action is to be taken on the evidence of cruelty in many of Britain's slaughterhouses?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman asked why only a certain number of recommendations have been implemented. He will appreciate that certain measures can be implemented by means of existing primary legislation, but others require new primary legislation. We are about to conclude the consultation period—in fact, it ends on the first day of next month—on the recommendations relative
    1166
    to religious slaughter. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the Government's stance on that. Once the consultation period is over, we shall lay regulations quickly.
    The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department would like to introduce an animal welfare Bill. That, of course, depends on parliamentary time. If we were to win such time, we would be requiring local authorities to—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question and he is getting a specific answer. We shall require local authorities to appoint a person specifically responsible for animal welfare. We intend to make the rules of practice mandatory and not voluntary. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not object because I managed to guess his supplementary. We intend to extend protection to deer.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister and the new agriculture team, which I am sure will be extremely successful. May I ask my hon. Friend to remind the Opposition that when I put forward an animal welfare Bill embodying recommendations by the Farm Animal Welfare Council with regard to the slaughter of deer, the legislation was blocked by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend confirms the problem. We need new primary legislation. If we achieve that, the measures that she sought to introduce will be included.

    Irradiated Food
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to bring forward his proposals for the comprehensive labelling of foodstuffs treated with irradiation.
    Mr. MacLean: The Government intend that labelling of irradiated foodstuffs is full and clear. I will shortly be putting out for public consultation appropriate amendments to the Food Labelling Regulations.
    Mr. Lloyd: How useful is labelling in the absence of any proper diagnostic testing?
    Mr. Maclean: Labelling is essential so that consumers can make a choice. If the hon. Gentleman is in the House later this afternoon, when our White Paper is published and a statement is made, he will find that we shall be taking tough powers in the new food Bill which will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits to deal with all aspects of food irradiation and to establish a rigorous and toughly controlled licensing system which will satisfy the public demand.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to revisit the Shropshire hills environmentally sensitive area.
    Mr. Maclean: I attach a great deal of importance to getting out to the environmentally sensitive areas and seeing things for myself. I hope that the Shropshire hills will be one of the ESAs that I have the opportunity to visit.
    Mr. Gill: I apologise for the fact that the wording of my question has been somewhat overtaken by events. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will be most welcome in

    1167
    England's second largest environmentally sensitive area, where he will see for himself how the interests of agriculture and the environment are well reconciled. He will be able to learn at first hand how welcome last month's announcement of the increase in the suckler cow premium is, and how well the more recent announcement of no upper limit on sheep headage payments is being received.
    Mr. Maclean: Environmentally sensitive areas have been tremendously successful and have been one of the best initiatives in the countryside. I look forward to other areas experiencing the same success as Shropshire, for which 208 applications were received in respect of 14,800 hectares of land. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to show me round and introduce me to those who have been successful there.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Miss Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend had time in her busy day to note the return to work of Tilbury's grain and container divisions and, yesterday, of 12,500 National Union of Railwaymen staff? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an immense ratification of our policy of non-intervention in industrial matters? Will she look most closely at the release of British Rail from public ownership?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome the return of so many railwaymen and dockers to work. They realise, clearly, that serving the customer is the best way of serving their industries and their self-interest. I also agree with my hon. Friend that if there are disputes they are a matter for negotiation between management and workers in the industry and not for visits and meetings at No. 10. It is for management to solve them within the framework of rules and regulations that they have been given. I agree with my hon. Friend that privatisation in general is far better than nationalisation. As she knows, I did not want the two mixed up in this dispute. We shall, of course, look at privatisation in the future.
    Mr. Hattersley rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.
    Mr. Hattersley: Which quality does the Prime Minister think she displayed to most advantage during last week's Cabinet reshuffle—loyalty, honesty or sensitivity?
    The Prime Minister: That combination of qualities succeeded in getting into an excellent Cabinet men of great experience in a wide range of Departments and a terrific team of younger Ministers—[Interruption.]—supported
    1168
    by a first-class team of younger Ministers at lower levels, whom we saw performing so excellently at the Dispatch Box earlier today.
    Mr. Hattersley: If the Prime Minister feels so warmly about her senior colleagues, why have she and her press secretary spent three days intentionally humiliating the Leader of the House?
    The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. We have the most excellent Cabinet for the future. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman is rattled—he knows that it is a winning Cabinet.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the months go by, the right hon. Lady will come to learn that if she sacrifices the trust even of her senior colleagues, she will certainly sacrifice the trust of the nation. Does she realise that the Government are palpably and obviously a shambles and that this week's Cabinet reshuffle, which was intended to set them back on their feet, has merely left them as they began—in total disarray?
    The Prime Minister: I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that we had an excellent Cabinet meeting this morning. I remind him that in 10 years this Government have transformed Britain from the shambles that he and his Government left.
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the two people who led the campaign to prevent Gloucester council from transferring its housing to a housing association, to the benefit of all tenants, one went on to incite people to break the law by not paying the community charge and both have been rewarded for their efforts by being given well-paid jobs funded by the Labour city council? Will my right hon. Friend resolutely condemn such examples of cynical disrespect for ratepayers and misallocation of ratepayers' funds?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. That also shows cynical disrespect for the rule of law passed by this House which, if democracy means anything, must be obeyed. The community charge—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to the Prime Minister. This is the last opportunity that we shall have for some time.
    The Prime Minister: The community charge will increase the accountability of councils to their electors. We understand why the Labour party does not like it. It will show up the extravagance of Labour councils with their ratepayers' money, and the economy of Conservative councils which look after the money raised from community charge payers.
    Mr. Ashdown: Did not President Mitterrand say in public today what the right hon. Lady's ex-Foreign Secretary had been telling her in private for some time—that Britain is in danger of being left out and left behind in Europe? Is it not the case that the right hon. and learned

    1169
    Gentleman's pro-European views cost him his job but the right hon. Lady's anti-European views will cost Britain its future?
    The Prime Minister: That is nonsense. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are ahead of France in implementing matters that have been agreed. We are ahead in having free capital movements. I look forward to France following our lead. We are ahead in having abolished foreign exchange controls. I look forward to France doing the same. We are ahead in having abolished many subsidies to industry. At the Madrid summit, France and not Britain was isolated. Nothing, least of all the right hon. Gentleman, will persuade me to surrender the sovereignty of this House to the European Parliament.
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: Did not yesterday's rail strike show that London and other cities are incapable of absorbing yet more road traffic, with the inexorable rise in pollution and congestion that it brings? During the recess will my right hon. Friend re-read the central London rail study produced by the Department of Transport, which calls urgently for the construction of new underground railway lines in London? Does my right hon. Friend recognise this urgent need and will she please discuss it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport. Finally, does she recognise that the only way to build those lines is to increase public investment?
    The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in these matters. During the recess I shall be reading a number of heavy books. I confess that the one to which he referred had not occurred to me, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be reading the central and east London rail studies. I accept the importance of those studies. Decisions on the findings will be taken this autumn in the context of the Government's consideration of the competing claims for all forms of public expenditure. I remind my hon. Friend that investment in London railways is already at record levels and is set to increase, quite apart from implementing the new lines proposed. Investment in London railways is running at about £650 million in the current year.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her concern that at a time when inflation is higher than we would wish it to be, it is important that wage demands are curbed? Will she agree that those who are leading industries and are giving themselves often vulgar increases in salaries have a duty to lead from the front and to curb their own excesses so that they can give responsible leadership in relation to the claims of those lower down the scale?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend and I agree that higher performance and higher productivity at all levels merit higher rewards. The point of having higher productivity is to enable one to achieve lower unit costs,
    1170
    which enables one to give higher wages because of higher effort. That is why we have profit-sharing schemes and performance-related pay. I agree with my hon. Friend that when the priority is to control costs and get down inflation, business leaders have a particular responsibility to lead by example, and I hope that in future they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barron: Has the Prime Minister instructed her new Secretary of State for the Environment to give further help to besieged Conservative Back Benchers with an increase in the poll tax cushion?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we had looked at the safety net provisions under which resources go from one area to another, and my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had indeed varied them to ensure that some of the gainers got their gains while those who were losers under that area safety net system did not have to bear more than some £25 per payer. That has eased the position a great deal. My right hon. Friend also gave extra money to those who had low rateable values and to those in ILEA. That has eased the position, but I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider the matter again.
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Franks: When considering future legislation, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the case of Barrow Borough Transport, which in the two years of its existence before going into liquidation lost £1½ million, which included a £½ million loan from Barrow council which was illegal and ultra vires? Will she consider introducing legislation to extend the powers of district auditors and speed up the process by which miscreants are brought to book?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but in the Local Government Act 1988 we have already significantly strengthened auditors' powers, enabling them to act pre-emptively in certain circumstances. We believe that when that is working sufficiently, it should be enough. At present we have no plans to strengthen auditors' powers further unless there are circumstances which clearly require further amendment.
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McCartney: Will the Prime Minister take action in relation to Westminster city council, and in particular Lady Porter, whose actions are bringing the whole of local government into disrepute, and the activities of the

    1171
    Conservative party in using public funds to try to return a discredited council at next year's local government elections?
    The Prime Minister: Westminster city council responsible for its own affairs—[Interruption.] and I am sure that it will deal with them.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the deputy Prime Minister tell us the business for the first week after the summer recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)rose——
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I call the Leader of the House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The business for the first week after the summer adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 17 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Griffiths report and community care on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 18 OCTOBER/THURSDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm 675)
FRIDAY 20 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on top-up loans for students on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Dobson: May I thank the deputy Prime Minister for his statement and welcome him to his new job? I fear that it bears an uncanny resemblance to a Government training scheme, with him dogsbodying around for an ungrateful boss but with no—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a day for Back Benchers. Let us get on with it.
Mr. Dobson: —with the right hon. and learned Gentleman dogsbodying around for an ungrateful boss, but with no guarantee of a proper job at the end of it.
May I thank him also for so promptly honouring the undertakings of his predecessor and for arranging debates in Government time on the Government's response to the Griffiths proposals on care in the community and for the debate on the proposals to replace student grants with student loans? We would, of course, have preferred both those debates to be on substantive motions, and we especially object to the student loans debate being held on a Friday.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman during the recess—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to settle down. I repeat that this is a day for Back Benchers, but these interruptions are taking up a lot of time and I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible in the next debate.
Mr. Dobson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give some thought during the recess to establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? The people of Scotland and their elected representatives feel cheated at the failure to establish this, the only Select Committee that has not been established as required under the Standing Orders of the House. As there is now a new Back Bencher for Scotland, the Government may find it easier to find Tories to take their places on that Committee.
Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the much postponed debate on Members'
1174
pensions and on the possibility of severance payments for Ministers will be arranged during the spill-over period? I am sure that he will agree that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the severance pay proposals before the next reshuffle.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I acknowledge the benevolent part of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks and I shall leave the rest on one side by expressing my gratitude for his observations about the debates that we have been able to arrange on the Griffiths report and on top-up loans. I note his point about the arrangements for debates. At present, they are designed for the general convenience of the House. If he wishes to have any alternatives considered, that can be done through the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a topic that is not unfamiliar to the House—a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. One regrets the inability to form a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I think that, in the light of whatever factors he cares to mention, if anyone has any new proposals to make on that, they too can be considered through the usual channels.
It has also proved difficult to arrange a debate on parliamentary pensions and severance payments. I hope to be able to find time for that shortly after the House returns in October.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware, from his highly distinguished service at the Foreign Office, that the House of Commons is remiss at debating foreign affairs. Will he give his attention to that matter, in view of the enormous changes that are taking place in the world and our inability to consider them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am clearly aware of the importance of the matter my hon. Friend has raised. It is important to acknowledge that my predecessor recently arranged for two debates on foreign affairs, so I cannot rush in, ambitiously, in the near future.
Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the distinguished office he has now assumed. Those of us who have been in the House on Thursdays for business questions have heard the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) quite properly ask for for debates on the Griffiths report and student top-up loans. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has managed to deliver them so quickly. If he repeats that performance over many Thursdays, he will be an especially popular Leader of the House.
In view of his legal background, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange a debate on the White Paper on legal services, as the House has never had an opportunity to comment on the Government's proposals? In view of his experiences this week, will he arrange a debate on homelessness and those threatened with homelessness?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I do not feel impelled by any experiences this week to consider his last suggestion. Obviously it can be looked at. I am grateful for his appreciation of the announcement about debates on the Griffiths report and top-up loans. Legal services are an important issue and I am prepared to consider what can be done about a debate on them.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend in his new role in the House. Does he consider it appropriate to have a debate on the European monetary system and monetary relationships with the European Economic Community, in view of the recent comments of President Mitterrand of France?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the House normally feels impelled to have a debate simply because of the observations of a Head of State of a friendly nation, which I have of course, noted with interest. My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently tabled a full paper on that subject for consideration by a Committee in the House. That is the best way to handle it.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the deputy Prime Minister capitalise on the very warm reception he has just received from the House by trying to be a reforming Leader of the House? Will he start with the private Bill procedure, which has developed into a shambles in recent years? Will he notice the large number of Bills that are now being blocked? Will he take note of the excellent report of the special Procedure Select Committee on reforming private business, as that needs to be implemented as soon as possible, even if it involves having a "high noon" with the people who have just appointed him to his new post?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know of the hon. Gentleman's close interest in the important but extremely complicated subject of private Bill procedure; I also know of the reports which have been considered recently, but which I have not yet had time to study fully. I shall certainly endeavour to do so during the recess, and to consider the matter in the light of the hon. Gentlemen's observations.
Mr. David Howell: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it was hoped in some quarters that a Government statement might be made about Hong Kong and the so-called flexible package before the rising of the House. It is quite understandable that that has not proved possible, but will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, should he feel during the recess that circumstances in Hong Kong require him to introduce a new policy, he should not feel constrained from doing so, but will operate in accordance with Hong Kong's needs and interests rather than waiting until Parliament resumes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend will gather from the new arrangements made for ministerial duties in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that my right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary manifestly attaches importance to the subject of Hong Kong. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's proposal to his attention, however, so that he can keep it well in mind.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House will be aware that, for some of this week, 10 Downing street appears to have been operating as a rather less than efficient estate agency. In view of that inefficiency, can we expect the announcement, soon after the recess, of a debate on the privatisation of the various stately homes handled by the Prime Minister?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that most, if not all, of the stately homes in which
1176
he takes such a close interest are not in state ownership, but are owned by trusts established for the purposes for which they are being used.
Mr. James Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Leader of the House on his appointment to a position that will bring him into close touch with all Members of Parliament? May I also congratulate the Prime Minister, who has been the subject of some cheap and hurtful gibes, on the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Would it be possible to debate the political situation in Northern Ireland immediately after the recess to see whether we can make new political progress?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Of course I understand his continuing interest in the topic that he has raised; the House has had several recent opportunities to discuss Northern Irish affairs in some detail, but I shall certainly keep his suggestion in mind.
Dr. David Owen: Will the Leader of the House ensure that next year's defence debates follow soon after the publication of the defence White Paper? For three years, there has been a pause of five to six months, to which I believe many hon. Members on both sides of the House object.
May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy and distinguished service as Foreign Secretary over the past six years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those last remarks. If what he has described has happened in each of the three preceding years there may well have been good reasons for it, but I shall certainly take account of what he has said.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Let me join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend warmly to his new and important post. In view of the major outbreak of salmonella poisoning in my constituency and in other parts of the north-west, and the statement on food safety that we are about to hear, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that an early debate on food safety and the Government's proposals will be possible after the summer recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in that topic, particularly in the light of recent serious problems in his constituency. I shall look carefully at his suggestion after studying the consequences of his afternoon's statement.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In the short time for which he has occupied his new position, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had an opportunity to read early-day motion 1245, concerning the sacking of Tilbury docks shop stewards?
[That this House is outraged by the brutal attack upon the rights of free trade unionists by the arbitrary decision of the port employers at Tilbury Docks to summarily dismiss only the 16 shop stewards in a clear and provocative attempt to intimidate trade unionists acting in full compliance with the Government's onerous laws.]
Does he not realise that there should have been a debate on the matter—even, perhaps, at this late hour—particularly as the redundancy payments scheme is being used in such a flagrantly anti-trade union and

1177
anti-democratic manner? Is it not a disgrace that shop stewards should be sacked in this way and that other ordinary members of the dock unions should then have been placed in an almost impossible position because, if they had stayed out, the dockers who have been sacked would get no compensation whatever? It is the worst possible use of money in an anti-trade union way, and I hope that that will be taken on board by the Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman was first elected to this House from Merseyside on the same day as I was, and I have known of his interest in the future of the dock industry since that time. However, I confess that I do not think that the advice that he has given his fellow workers in the industry has served them to the best advantage. The Government have been obliged to introduce legislation which was recently enacted in respect of the dock labour scheme. The shop stewards who were dismissed were among a larger group made redundant by their employers and, despite risking dismissal for breach of contract by going on strike, they have received special compensation of up to £35,000 in redundancy.
Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend to his new tasks, may I ask him whether, as deputy Prime Minister, he will look at all aspects and give proper guidance about Government policy, perhaps in a fuller way than he has been able to do in the past? If he will not move to adventurous experiment on procedure, may I urge him at least to work for a consolidated advance to modernise our procedure in the House? Lastly, the Procedure Committee consists of many senior men who spend many hours trying to bring forward concepts for modernisation. Could we have early debates on the Committee's reports and not have them deferred as has happened in the past?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can tell my hon. Friend in response to his first observation that I shall of course endeavour to discharge the duties of my office to the best of my ability. My hon. Friend has a considerable and quite proper interest in the procedural reform of the House. I shall study all the reports that have so far been produced and look forward to those that will be produced in the years to come. I shall try to reach a balanced conclusion, which is what I think my hon. Friend is urging upon us.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the deputy Prime Minister aware that the reception that he received upon reading out the Government business for when we come back was probably the greatest accolade that any Tory Minister has received in the 19 years that I have been in the House? Is he also aware that the Prime Minister cut a very lonely and beleagured figure next to him? In view of that——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with next week's business?
Mr. Skinner: In view of that, will the Leader of the House be more magnanimous to the dockers and bear in mind that, like him, many of them have lost their jobs? However, unlike him, they did not get another job at the same rate of pay. Dockers have got the sack, and unlike the Leader of the House will have to scramble to get back to work and go on the dole. Will he re-examine his answer
1178
to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and try to find some method to stop the employers in the docks treating dockers like cattle?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The future of the docks industry and the dock workers in it has recently been very fully considered by the House. The arrangements now being administered were approved by the House a short time ago.
Mr. Julian Critchley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he enjoys the respect, affection and admiration of the whole House? He may have missed an item in the newspapers last week about what happened to the former Secretary of State for the Environment in a field in Hampshire last Saturday. He went up in smoke. I hasten to add that I was not responsible for his martyrdom, but I am sure that he is aware of the anxiety, indeed the anger and perhaps apprehension, felt by all my constituents about the prospect of Foxley Wood, a new town of 5,500 houses, being built in my constituency. Will he please try to find time for a debate as soon as we return on the whole business of planning and rebuilding within the south-east?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It took my hon. Friend an uncharacteristically long time to disclose the nature of his inquiry. I am sure that the House will have followed him with interest. Now that he has arrived there, I can agree that the matter of planning in many places, not least in the south-east of England, raises a large number of complex conflicts of interest, in my constituency as well as his. Clearly, this will need to be debated and considered in the house on more than one occasion.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new position. However, can we have an assurance that the translation of the former Secretary of State for Defence to the Back Benches does not ensure that he pursues, perhaps rightfully, a business interest to the detriment of his parliamentary interest, because it would not look well in Scotland if Tory Back Benchers refused to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and preferred to pursue interests outside the House? I know of the Leader of the House's interest in these matters, so could we have an assurance that he will make a statement on them when we return?
In view of the translation of the previous Leader of the House to the Department of Energy, can we know when the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal will sign a contract to ensure the continued employment of miners in Fife and central Scotland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall draw the last question of the two raised by the hon. Member to those who know more about it than I do. As to his first question, it would not be proper for me to comment on any personal implications of what he has said. The House has its own rules for considering such matters.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that not long ago there was a debate on the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, which took place early in the morning, when there were virtually 100 hon. Members present. Should the measure be resubmitted, will he ensure that it is debated at a better time of the day?

1179
In more general terms, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving the House the opportunity to debate the affairs of the Church of England? These tend to be debated in a curmudgeonly spirit despite the Church of England's successes—for example, in launching an urban fund—which show that it is a lively and central institution, and that it would be a good subject on which to have a debate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in his admiration for many of the works and activities of the established Church. I cannot join him in such close familiarity with the legislative procedures recently affecting it, but I shall look into the matter in the light of his question.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House recap what has happened over the past four Thursdays, when Welsh Members pressed his predecessor to arrange a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee so that the Members can discuss the National Health Service in Wales? Having reflected on the replies that have been given, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be more positive by ensuring that we have debates on Wales? In the first week that we are back after the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to debate the Children Bill? Many people will be looking forward to the implementation of the Bill, and it is high time that grandparents, divorced people and others were protected by the Government through this Bill being enacted. Will he arrange an early debate on the Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: At this stage, I cannot usefully add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the previous Leader of the House on the hon. Gentleman's first point. I know that this is a matter that has caused a good deal of anxiety, and it will no doubt be considered again when the House returns. As to the Children Bill, that is manifestly important legislation that will need to be considered again before long.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right and learned Friend has made a great start by announcing a week's business without one of these pointless, frustrating and silly debates after 10 o'clock on European directives. Could we have a day's debate on what our future policy on the EEC should be, bearing in mind that the Government seem rightly to be becoming more and more frustrated at the bureaucratic Socialist nonsense coming from Brussels, but on the other hand seem powerless to do anything about it, apart from complaining, because of the problems of the Single European Act? Is it not high time that, for the sake of democracy, we have a full day's debate on where we stand on the EEC?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fear that I am unable to take the enthusiasm that I had for the beginning of my hon. Friend's question to its conclusion. The Single European Act has been discussed on many occasions and I am sure that the House will find further opportunities to consider the general matter which my hon. Friend has raised.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House agree that, whenever there is a major tragedy, everyone welcomes the efforts of the three emergency services? Will he make time for a debate so that we can ascertain why the members of the ambulance staff are singled out for different treatment from the staff of the
1180
other services when it comes to wages? Is he aware that officers of the ambulance staff union are balloting members on industrial action? Does he realise that the rest of the country believes that the Government are using patients in the most cynical way by deliberately treating the ambulance service differently from the police and the fire service?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady knows that negotiations in respect of the ambulance service are matters for the ambulance Whitley council. The trade union side rejected the management side's improved offer when the negotiations adjourned on Tuesday. As she said, the officers of the trade union side declared their intention to ballot members on their willingness to take industrial action. The outcome of that will not be known until September. I hope that the trade unions will take up the management side's offer of a joint review of the operations of the salaried structure rather than threaten to put patients at risk.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, who richly deserves both those prefixes and both the offices that he now holds, arrange an early debate on London's traffic, which is causing increasing concern?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that there will be an opportunity for discussing that topic during the debates that will take place tomorrow.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the first special report of the EC Legislation Committee, which was published this week, which incorporates correspondence between myself and the former Leader of the House on changes for scrutiny of EC legislation? The proposed changes are welcome, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that they do not go far enough? Does he recall that the important report from Mr. Delors on economic and monetary union, which was recommended for debate by two Select Committees, has yet to be debated? Will he arrange a debate early on our return, bearing in mind the fact that decisions have been made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that bear upon that issue? Does he think that that is a good advertisement for parliamentary democracy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's close and practical interest in these matters. I am familiar with the special report to which he refers, but I confess that I have not yet re-examined it with the attention that I shall no doubt give it. He will know that the matters which interest him are currently being considered by the Procedure Committee. We shall look forward to its recommendations on the topic.
The decisions so far taken in the European Council in respect of the Delors report have not related to any specific legislative proposals. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put a full explanatory memorandum before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and has given extensive evidence to that body on that topic. That is an important manifestation of the interest of the House in this subject.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the discussion about the pay increases of senior

1181
directors, will my right hon. and learned Friend, with all the authority of a very successful former Chancellor of the Exchequer, arrange for a debate in which he may be able to remind us all, as he did in the past, that such increases do not cause inflation but that Governments, and Governments alone, do so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have always appreciated the straightforward nature of my hon. Friend's views on the causation of inflation. It must be said that one other factor that plays a part in generating inflationary pressures is expectation. Expectations cannot be influenced in a sensible way that will enable unemployment to fall at the same time that inflation is tackled, if people in positions of senior management award themselves grossly over-inflated pay increases.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the Leader of the House caught sight of statutory instrument No. 247 on credit unions in Northern Ireland, the object of which is to increase certain facilities to members of such organisations? While that concession is welcome, the House should surely debate at an early date the refusal of the Registrar General of Friendly Societies to extend the same concessions to credit unions in Scotland and elsewhere in mainland Britain. Should not the registrar general be reprimanded for his insensitive and foolishly inconsistent behaviour?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that I have not yet devoted a great deal of my time to studying the particular topic that the hon. Gentleman mentions. On that ill-informed basis, it would not be right for me to rebuke the official concerned. However, now that my attention has been drawn to the issue, I shall see whether it is a proper matter for debate.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I add my good wishes to those that have been expressed to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Would it be possible to arrange as early as possible a debate on freedom of expression and speech in connection with the Salman Rushdie case, which raises important questions as to the nature of our public society and citizenship? The House has not yet given a clear lead as to the priorities of public society in this country and of British nationality.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the Salman Rushdie case, which caused me considerable concern in my previous office. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a number of important speeches on that topic, and it rates suficiently important to be worth considering as the subject of a future debate.
Mr. Alan Meale: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill reached its conclusion today. Will he guarantee that its Report stage will not be debated on the Floor of this House at least until the outcome of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report has been announced?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I must stop short of an undertaking in respect of a question of which I have only
1182
just had notice from the hon. Gentleman, I assure him that the Government appreciate the importance of Mr. Justice Taylor's prospective report.
Sir Anthony Grant: Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given evidence before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, in view of industry's need to enjoy currency stability above all things, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a good idea to debate the question of this country joining the exchange rate mechanism—particularly as many people both outside and inside the Government apparently believe that we should join it sooner rather than later?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that that matter is one of optimum interest and of great importance. Clearly, it may be appropriate at some stage for the House to have an opportunity to debate it.
Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate the deputy Prime Minister on eluding the tricky knitting of the Madame Defarges of Downing street, and welcome the qualities that he brings to this House—which include great stability and sound experience.
I welcome also the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of intent to study before the first week of business after the recess the numerous reports of the Select Committee on Procedure. Will he consider also how he might best bring his good offices to bear in putting a stop to the Government's increasing practice of leaking information to the press before making statements in this House, and of treating the House with disdain and contempt? Will he ponder the fact that only by good examples being set at ministerial level—and by that I mean starting at prime ministerial level—may ordinary Back-Bench Members be expected to behave properly and to conduct themselves with decorum?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not compete with the hon. Gentleman in drawing parallels from experiences of the French revolution, but I can assure him that the Government and all its members are conscious of the need to pay due respect to the House, and that leaking and the other disreputable habits to which he refers are not something for which the Government are properly to blame.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it was traditionally the case that the request for a statement about the business for the following week came from the Leader of the Opposition, a practice which in recent years seems to have fallen into disuse? Like many doctors, the Leader of the Opposition is availing himself of a deputising service. As the Leader of the Opposition is such an important plank in our strategy for re-election at the next general election, and as Parliament will, in all probability, shortly be televised, is it not necessary to have him here as often as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not join my hon. Friend in offering advice to the Leader of the Opposition, although he may well need a great deal of it. I am sure that the House will want to consider a number of the implications of the early prospect of televising our proceedings.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on low pay, particularly in the National Health Service and British

1183
Rail? Is he aware that I have two pay slips from British Rail workers in Workington, one of whom supports a wife and three children and the other a wife and two children, and both show a take-home pay of £88 a week? How can people live on such money? What am I to tell British Rail workers when they come to the Labour club in Workington on Saturday to discuss their pay levels with me?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of arrangements within the structure of our social services, of which family credit is one, that may relate to such problems. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a more general and far-reaching debate, it is open to the Opposition to suggest that.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please try, through the usual channels, to secure the appointment of a shadow Leader of the House worthy of facing him in the months ahead as the disparity of talent is matched only by that between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Neither my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor I need be preoccupied with that problem.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on local authorities' provision of permanent sites for gipsies and travellers? Is he aware of the latest daft decision of Conservative-controlled Bradford council to spend £1,260 a week of ratepayers' money for private security guards to watch a field and to report if gipsies and travellers return to camp on it? If that same protection were provided for the other 27 sites in the district, it would cost ratepayers £1·8 million a year. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse to designate the existing two sites in Bradford until a third permanent site is provided, proper provision is made by local neighbouring authorities and the House has had an opportunity to debate the issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The details that the hon. Gentleman gives of the particular problem with which he is so familiar underline my impression that that area of legislation and practice is one of extreme difficulty and complexity, which many of us will have come across in our constituencies. All that I can say at this stage is that he should encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to press for the matter to be debated more widely.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend has dealt in an exemplary way with the institutions of Europe—I am particularly thinking of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance—when he has so often been Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and the co-operation that we have all had from him should not be forgotten.
In asking for a debate when we resume, I would go to the most important debate that the Conservative party is facing—the pollution of our environment. We must have a strong policy—certainly in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—on the dumping of sewage and sludge in the waters around our coast. I am sure that such a debate would be well attended.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. No hon. Member doubts the enormous and fast-increasing importance of the environmental problems arising from an expanding population, growing economic activity and shrinking space. It is one of the consequences of the high rate of growth and prosperity in the past 10 years. Nobody is more conscious of the importance of these matters than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House take cognisance of the many representations, as reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for a proper debate on the Health Service in Wales? Will he note that there is disappointment that there was no statement on the Health Service in Wales today and that we are still waiting for the documents promised by the Secretary of State for Wales at the Dispatch Box on 1 March? Can he add his weight to that of his predecessor in calling for those matters to be put right? Can he persuade the Secretary of State for Wales that he has not been reshuffled to a Department of empty packaging? Will he make plenty of time in the next Session for a debate on all the matters on which content is outstanding in Wales, including those in early-day motion 879,
[That this House calls on the Government to accept the verdict of the electors of the Vale of Glamorgan who rejected the Government's plans to undermine the National Health Service; calls on the Government to accept that most people want more money to be spent on the Health Service and now realise that Britain is spending a smaller proportion of national income on health than most other advanced countries; notes the widespread anger that has been caused by the introduction of eyesight and dental test charges and the proposition that doctors should be turned into accountants; and consequently calls on the Government to withdraw the Health Service White Paper and the nine consultative documents published for England.]
early-day motion 1183,
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to make public his plans for the future of the Health Service in Wales in the light of the Health Service Review; renews its plea to him to publish the documents promised to the House on 1st March and to honour his promise to the House that, before the White Paper on Health is implemented there will be plenty of time for dialogue and suggestions; regrets that documents for Wales were not published at the same time as those published for England; expresses the fear that, despite careful attempts to appear more reasonable than the Secretary of State for Health the Secretary of State for Wales intends to promote policies which will be equally damaging to the Health Service in Wales as those being pursued for England; reminds him that the Prime Minister's approach to the Health Service has been decisively rejected by the voters of South Glamorgan and North Wales and by the people of Wales as a whole; stresses that cups of tea and soft words are no substitute for clear proposals and open debate on the future of the best-loved public service in Wales; and calls on the Secretary of State to come clean on his intentions.]
early-day motion 1001,
[That this House notes that on 1st March, the Secretary of State for Wales told the House that before the White Paper on Health was implemented there would be plenty of time for dialogue and suggestions and expressed the specific

1185
hope that the White Paper would be debated in the Welsh Grand Committee when he would be interested to hear the views of honourable Members; notes that he has taken specific steps to avoid any such debate when the Welsh Grand Committee meets on 28th June; and, while welcoming the opportunity to contrast the very real needs of Valleys communities with the failure of the so-called Valleys Initiative, nevertheless deplores the unwillingness of the Secretary of State to either explain or debate his intentions regarding the future of the health service in Wales.]
and early-day motion 1182,
[That this House notes the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales, after 10 months deliberation, to give heavily-qualified approval to the strategic plan put forward by the South Glamorgan Health Authority; emphasises the implied rejection of the proposal to close Sully Hospital; remarks that authoritative local sources had already predicted that Sully Hospital would be reprieved; now calls on the Health Authority to issue an immediate statement guaranteeing the long-term future of Sully Hospital on the basis of its present services plus an expanded service of therapeutic and remedial work as well as providing the site for the neighbourhood hospital to serve the eastern part of the Vale of Glamorgan; and notes that Sully Hospital is ideally suited to fill these roles and that such a decision will win applause from specialists, doctors, nurses and all other employees as well as from patients and the public who have campaigned for the future of Sully Hospital as well as fitting in with the Secretary of State's findings and providing the best way forward for the Health Service in South Glamorgan.]
which are on health; on those that are on local services in Wales, which are early-day motion 1246,
[That this House notes that the July statement on Welsh local government finance failed to provide local authorities in South Glamorgan with adequate information about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Wales or to offer adequate guidance to local authorities to assist in their financial planning; notes that the introduction of a unified business rate, far from bringing benefits, will involve a sharp increase in costs to businesses in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan; notes that the Government intends to pretend that this is now a part of national taxation; notes that while more money will be raised through a unified business rate in South Glamorgan, less money will be returned to the local authorities on the Government's present policy; further notes that the introduction of poll tax at the same time provides a regressive tax which hurts most those who earn least as well as introducing great uncertainty; doubts whether the Government's safety-netted figure of £195 for Cardiff is an adequate calculation, as it ignores the costs of inflation, evasion and poll tax administration; and calls on the Government to provide more information and more money for the local authorities, residents and businesses of South Glamorgan, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.]
early-day motion 1244,
[That this House notes that the purpose of the July Statement on Welsh local government finance each year is to give information about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Wales, to offer some guidance to local authorities to assist in their financial planning, and to allow informed debate to take place; believes that the 1989 statement needs to be particularly clear and informative as it comes at a time
1186
of upheaval; notes with alarm that this year's statement proved anecdotal and uninformative; calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to recognise that his selection of £175 as the standard assessment figure for Wales is meaningless because the figure ignores the costs of inflation, evasion and poll tax administration and as the figure is based on his own calculations and assumptions, the basis of which he has not published; further calls on him to recognise that he depends on a Welsh Office view of savings to be made by local authorities without indicating how these savings are to be achieved; points out that his expenditure assumption fails to take into account true increases in inflation during the year; points out that local authorities need a proper basis on which to plan their finances; and appeals to the Secretary of State to celebrate his relief at surviving in office by issuing a genuine statement on local government finances which will give full and clear information to honourable Members, local authorities and the general public.]
and early-day motion 1232,
[That this House deplores the Government's plans to introduce the poll tax in Wales, despite its overwhelming rejection by the Welsh people; condemns the wholly inadequate rebate system; notes that the poorest communities in Wales will suffer, and regrets that the opportunity to give detailed information on the effects of the tax on Wales, to honourable Members on the floor of the House was not taken by the Government.]
and on those on the many other Government failures in Wales, which are early-day motion 1033,
[That this House notes the distinction drawn by the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessor between the Valleys Initiative which was launched by one of them and the Valleys Programme which was launched by the other; is saddened to see the public conflict between two former Cabinet colleagues about who was responsible for what; regrets the refusal of the Secretary of State for Wales to answer simple questions asking for a list of projects and costs funded, respectively, under the Initiative and the Programme; finds the excuse of cost unconvincing when the Prime Minister was willing to fill 34 columns of Hansard and waste £4,600 of taxpayers' money to answer a question seeking a list of her so-called achievements since 1979 and when her Government has done so much damage to Valleys communities during the same period; and is forced to conclude that the Secretary of State has no real answers and to concur with the judgement of Lord Crickhowell that the Valleys Programme contains nothing new.]
early-day motion 1034,
[That this House notes with alarm and regret the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Environment to accept his share of responsibility for the plight of elderly people who face the effects of cold in winter; calls on him and the Secretary of State for Wales to offer adequate funds for home insulation work to make up for the decimation of numbers employed on insulation work as a result of changes in Government training schemes and thus restore hope that such suffering will be ended.]
early-day motion 1057,
[That this House notes the proposals for a management buy-out of the West Wales Region of the Welsh Development Agency and the subsequent denial by the Welsh Development Agency in Cardiff; notes that the suspended officers at the Welsh Development Agency's Carmarthen office first approached senior officers at the Welsh Development Agency last year and undertook six months of numerous meetings and discussions on the

1187
proposal and asks the Welsh Development Agency whether it acquiesced or encouraged the proposals and further asks if similar proposals are being considered or being developed in other regional offices of the Agency; notes the Secretary of State for Wales's denial, both in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and in reply to a written Question from the honourable Member for Carmarthen, of plans to privatise the Welsh Development Agency in whole or in part; regrets that the Secretary of State allowed the discussions on the management buy-out to reach such an advanced stage; asks the Prime Minister to set up an external inquiry into the origin of the proposal, including the involvement of the Welsh Development Agency centrally and the Secretary of State in discussions; and reaffirms the total commitment of this House to a publicly accountable Welsh Development Agency playing a vital role in economic development in Wales.]
early-day motion 1091,
[That this House is appalled and concerned by the substantial and widening gap between the rich and the poor in England and Wales confirmed in the recently published Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies; notes that the highest death rates are in Wales and the North; and believes that the Government should urgently take action to alleviate unemployment, poverty and poor housing all of which are established as major contributors to mortality rates in these areas.]
early-day motion 1224,
[That this House deplores the failure of the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the inspector's report following the inquiry held at Bristol in February and March 1989 to consider objections to the Government's proposal to double toll charges on the Severn Bridge despite the fact that he has been sitting on the report for a number of weeks; and believes that the Government proposal to implement the increases in September 1989 should not take effect and that there should be a full debate on the matter in the House of Commons.]
and others?
Mr. Tony Banks: That is half the rain forest gone.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that the immense talents of my Parliamentary Private Secretary were not quite able to match the speed reading technique adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the continuing interest in the prospect of a discussion on the particular aspects of the Health Service in Wales. I have seen the previous exchanges about it and I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said diminishes the importance of the fact that the Government are spending record amounts on the National Health Service, which is treating more patients than ever before. That will be taken into account in Wales, as in the rest of the kingdom.
Mr. John Bowis: If my right hon. and learned Friend had come with me this morning to Battersea dogs' home, he would have heard a better class of barking than we have heard from the Opposition. More importantly, he would also have been able to witness the launch of a voluntary dog registration scheme which involves the painless implanting of a chip to enable dogs and their owners to be restored to each other. Can that
1188
subject be debated at an early date so that we can consider how Parliament might build on that voluntary experiment?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share my hon. Friend's interest in this topic. In my constituency, there is also a home for animals abandoned by their owners, which is run by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. However, I have not yet been driven to the conclusion that my hon. Friend's suggestion is an urgent topic for consideration on the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Winnick: In a non-controversial way, may I ask the new Leader of the House whether arrangements can be made for an early debate on the power and patronage of the Prime Minister? Will he bear in mind that when Conservative activists were being interviewed on a radio broadcast this morning, some of them said that the Prime Minister was acting more like a dictator than anyone else they knew who had occupied that office? I hope that such a debate can be held and in it, will it be possible for the Home Secretary to participate, as well as the Leader of the House, and for them to give us their views?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman, unusually, finds it possible to raise such interesting topics in what he calls a spirit of non-controversiality, perhaps he can invite the leaders of his party to consider initiating a debate on that matter in Opposition time.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In view of the priority that the Prime Minister earlier today quite rightly attaches to the sovereignty of this House in European issues, could my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that we have these debates in more prime time than we had on Tuesday night, when important issues were being debated at 1 am? It is one thing to be rolled over by the Commission in policy areas where it was never dreamt that it had any competence; it is another thing for these things to be finessed through in the early hours of the morning when there are hardly any hon. Members here and there is no press here and the great British public are quite unlikely to know what is being done on their behalf in a totally undemocratic way.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised a point that has been raised many times on both sides of the House. The matter is now being considered by the Procedure Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's question will be properly considered.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 935 dealing with the level of pensions?
[That this House condemns the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the elderly population as a rule is now healthier and more independent than ever before; believes that such statements are designed to disguise the reality that many pensioners are living below the poverty line as a direct result of Government policy to abolish the earnings link under the Social Security Act 1980 and that the Government has further eroded the value of pensions by making pensioners responsible for 20 per cent. of their rates; and calls on the Secretary of State to take

1189
immediate action to uprate the state retirement pension to the level it would have been had the earnings link not been abolished.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the matter before we go through our annual weeping and wailing about the plight of pensioners during the winter? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the great hardship that is being suffered by thousands of pensioners in Britain. Does he agree that the House would be justified in having an early debate on the matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman refers to a topic that the House has discussed on many occasions and to which it will no doubt return. It is worth impressing on the hon. Gentleman, however, that during the seven years from 1979 to 1986, pensioners' total average net income increased in real terms by 23 per cent. That is a very important achievement which should be taken into account.
Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the Home Secretary's recent statement on the Hetherington report on war crimes, will the Leader of the House use his influence to get the matter cleared up as rapidly as possible in the interest of justice?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that one of the matters referred to in the report is the need for the question to be considered expeditiously, and I shall bear that in mind in considering how soon the House should have a debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: From the warm reception that the Leader of the House received from Conservative Members this afternoon, it is clear that he has not passed his political sell-by date. I hope that the Prime Minister noted that reception, because if anyone should be feeling embarrassed, isolated and awkward this afternoon, it is her.
Although business questions are not quite as good as foreign jollies, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will enjoy the occasion. We ask fairly futile questions; he gives us responses which are no doubt even more futile; and the world goes on much the same.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1248 dealing with congratulations to President Arup Moi, who I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows?
[That this house extends its warmest congratulations to President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya for the significant and courageous decision to destroy 2,400 elephant tusks confiscated from poachers; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to compensate the Kenyan Government for the $3 million forgone through the destruction of the ivory; commends the Kenyan example to other countries and in particular Hong Kong; and recommends that the EEC establishes a fund sufficient to compensate all those African countries willing to destroy ivory stocks.]
The early-day motion congratulates Kenya on incinerating $3 million-worth of ivory taken from ivory poachers.
May we please have an early debate on animal conservation—in particular on elephants, whales and sharks?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the lessons that I am quickly learning in this job is that I ought to concentrate my reply on the main part of the question put to me. I have studied
1190
the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I share his respect for the actions taken by President Moi. The whole House feels a deep sense of concern for the future of wildlife—particularly elephants, but also the other species that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am sure that the House will find opportunities of considering the matter further.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: So that the taxpayer can get value for his money, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange a debate on the Short money and the way in which the Opposition parties are funded? Is he aware that the Labour party has produced a report condemning Labour MPs for junketing abroad while the House is sitting? Should he not arrange for a copy of that report to be given to the Leader of the Opposition?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The report to which my hon. Friend referred sounds like a document of extreme interest and I shall ensure that it is studied as widely as possible.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have a debate on the reshuffle? Most people think that it is minor, not Major, and that we have the same old pack of awful policies. They cannot see Howe it does any credit to the Tories and with all the traffic congestion, it is still a case of no Parkin', son. As the Prime Minister has double-crossed and over-Hurd, is not the best policy for the electorate to place a single cross on a ballot paper for their Labour candidate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman makes a case that he may seek to sell to the electorate. However, there is no need to force a debate on the House.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider offering to the Opposition a half-day debate if they undertake to use it to explain to the House their policies for the reform of domestic rates? Is he aware that the debate they initiated earlier in the week was a total farce as they were unable to explain to the House how they intend to reform the domestic rating system? They said—to use their words—that their policy still needs "sophisticating". We hope that they will use the summer recess to "sophisticate" their policy for reform of the domestic rates. Until they manage to do so, it does not lie in their mouth to criticise our proposals for the community charge.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point is of the utmost importance. I doubt the Opposition's ability to achieve any sophistication, in that respect or any other. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take every opportunity of driving home to the electorate through the recess the massively higher burden that would be involved in any of the Opposition's alternatives.
Mr. Harry Barnes: During the recess, will the Leader of the House study the state of the franchise? In 75 constituencies over the past year, it has declined by over 1,000. The Prime Minister puts that down, possibly, to the postal strike of 1988. But there was no postal strike in Scotland between the 1987 and 1988 register. Some hon. Members think that there should be a debate on the impact of the poll tax on the electoral register. It seems to be fiddling the franchise in Finchley and a number of other constituencies.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the factors that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind is that, in the context of his question, there is no sense in referring to the community charge under the misleading title of poll tax.
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his new position. May we have an early debate on the duties and responsibilities of hon. Members, including Select Committees? If so, could we not look forward to the opportunity of explaining that Conservative Members welcome the opportunity to work for the Prime Minister in whatever job we do, whether as Back Benchers or Ministers? We do not expect former Secretaries of State for Defence, whether they are from Leeds or Ayr, to serve on Select Committees if they do not wish to.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes two important points which deserve to be supported by acclamation.
Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that hon. Members can see television programmes from the existing land-based channels. During the recess, will he give thought to providing the terrestrial facility because satellite television may bring to us programmes which will expose the inadequacies of the Opposition and their policies, and I would not like to miss the opportunity of seeing them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall try to take advantage of my longer sojourns in this country to follow my hon. Friend's example.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of early-day motion 1237 entitled "The Parliamentary Labour Party and the NUR"?
[That this House notes that no Labour honourable Member including his Deputy and the entire Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party have publicly supported the Leader of the Opposition in his common-sense remark to the leadership of the National Union of Railwaymen.]
Does he think that we should have a debate on the motion, which reminds the House that not a single Labour Member—including the shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the deputy leader of the party—has publicly supported the Leader of the Opposition's common-sense remark to the leadership of the NUR? Does he think that it would be a good wheeze suddenly to arrange a debate for either today or tomorrow so that the Leader of the Opposition has to return from wherever he has gone for his early holiday?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that we need a debate to follow through the implications of what my hon. Friend has said. We all welcome the observations attributed to the Leader of the Opposition in urging a sense of reality upon the NUR. We must all hope that Opposition Members will take an early opportunity universally and unanimously to follow their leader's example and urge the NUR to follow the advice of many in its own leadership and bring the strikes to a halt as soon as possible.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: How nice it will be for those of us who have long admired my right hon. and learned Friend's achievements—not least his greatest achievement in removing exchange controls—to have him back in the House at a time when we will be discussing the fiscal relationship between our country and Europe. Will he find time early in the new Session to debate alternative monetary structures so that we can consider the free market alternatives to EMS, the ecu and central banking? Those alternatives include the liberalisation of legal tender so that European currencies can be exchanged freely within European countries and the denationalisation of central banks so that we can develop a free market in currencies as an alternative to EMS, the ecu and so on.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend wishes a pretty comprehensive agenda on the House. I do not think that I can follow her quite as far down the road that she has taken us this afternoon. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I achieved a very fair conclusion at the Madrid summit to the effect that the suggestions made in the Delors report are by no means the only way of approaching the matter.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Government Back Benchers achieved a rare but nevertheless welcome victory in the vote following the ten-minute Bill procedure yesterday? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those engaged in providing essential public services should not strike either on a full-time or a part-time basis while tribunals or arbitration procedures are available to them? Is it not time that we had a debate on that issue and time that we protected the public during industrial disputes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of being ready continually to examine and re-examine the best way y of trying to protect the public from the undoubtedly massive inconvenience of strikes and industrial disruptions to essential services.

Food Safety
4.26 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The Government have today published a White Paper "Food Safety—Protecting the Consumer". Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of both Houses.
Consumers expect that the food they buy should be safe—and they are perfectly right to do so. All those who provide food—whether it be the farmer, the manufacturer, the caterer or the retailer—have a clear interest in the consumer's confidence. There is therefore no conflict between responsible producers of food and the Government's determination to set high—indeed, the highest practicable—standards of consumer protection. Those standards must be comprehensive, independent, up to date, and properly explained.
Already there exist wide-ranging laws which apply at every stage in the food chain. These are based, and action is taken, on the best available expertise and advice. The White Paper shows how comprehensive is the network of advisory committees on which the Government rely for independent, objective advice. Those committees, as well as advising Government, publish their reports and their findings.
There continue to be rapid developments and changes in food technology, in the range of products marketed, and also in consumer preferences. Great benefits are gained from this progress in terms of choice, convenience and value for money, but it means that our food legislation must keep pace so that consumers continue to be safeguarded. Therefore, after consultation with all interests, such as manufacturers and retailers, including enforcement and consumer bodies, the Government now intend to introduce legislative changes at the earliest possible opportunity.
The White Paper sets out the main changes proposed. These will include tighter controls on unfit food and food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded. These controls will apply to food before it is put on sale and allow suspect food to be withheld while investigations take place. The legislation will provide powers to adapt the law to cover new technical developments such as food irradiation, to ensure that the process is properly controlled. Powers will be strengthened to control contaminants and residues, including those which might arise from bad practices on farms or in manufacture. Ministers will have powers to make emergency control orders to deal with potentially serious problems, such as accidental contamination. Ministers will also be able to set training requirements for those who handle food commercially, building on existing good practice and thereby increasing the numbers of people trained by the food industry, local authorities and others.
To be effective, the rules and standards laid down must be applied. Most enforcement is carried out by local authorities. In a previous job, I found their work in that respect to be of particular importance. They have long experience and have developed considerable expertise in food safety, and the Government intend that that expertise should continue to be used in full. The registration of all food premises, for which the proposed new legislation will provide, will help local authorities to identify premises. Also, new enforcement measures will strengthen the
1194
existing system so that, for example, local authorities will be able to take action to have whole batches of unfit food condemned. At the moment, a local authority has power only to condemn the particular part of the food that has been found to be dangerous.
No matter how comprehensive and rigorous are the controls on food production and marketing, consumers themselves have a part to play. They have the responsibility for good kitchen hygiene, proper cooking, and reading and following instructions on the care, storage and cooking of food.
The proposals in the White Paper demonstrate the Government's commitment to food safety. We are always ready to consider adaptation when needed. We believe that our proposed legislation will provide the right framework for protecting consumers now and in the future.
Dr. David Clark: I had hoped that the advent of a new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would signal a new and safer approach to food in Britain. Sadly, having heard the Minister's statement and, more importantly, read his White Paper, my hopes have been dashed. The Minister's statement and his White Paper contain a mere seven proposals—no more—and they reek of complacency. The White Paper, which was heralded in advance by multitudinous press briefings as a new approach to food hygiene, has turned out to be little more than media hype. Very little in the Minister's proposals would have helped to prevent recent food poisoning incidents.
Opposition Members welcome the proposals for training staff in handling food, but will the requirements be statutory? That question is absolutely vital. Similarly, we welcome the proposal for the registration of commercial food premises, but those powers are useless unless local authorities have the resources with which to carry out that function. Plainly, at the moment they do not have the resources, either financially or in terms of personnel.
In the statement today and in the White Paper, the Minister says nothing about meat products. It has been suggested that the proposed legislation will follow the line of the American legislation and will not cover meat and meat products. Will the Minister enlighten us about the position?
Apart from those measures, little in the Bill will help to combat the contamination of our food. There is clearly a commitment to force irradiation of food on to the people of Britain, but that will do little to tackle the real problem. There is no need for irradiation if food is good and wholesome. We need irradiation only when food is not good and wholesome.
The Minister's statement and the White Paper are the result of five years' consultation. I doubt whether in the history of government such a long consultation has produced so little. The very first line in the first chapter of the White Paper states:
"The variety and quality of our food have never been better."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] Despite the shouts of Conservative Members, that statement is not only grossly irresponsible but highly inaccurate. It is also an insult to the many thousands of people who have suffered from food poisoning. Where have Conservative Members been for the past few years? Do they not know that food poisoning incidents have trebled in the seven years up to

1195
1988? Have they forgotten the salmonella and eggs saga last autumn? Have they forgotten the listeria in cheese——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Member on the Front bench for interrupting him but he must address his question to the Minister and not to Back Benchers. He is seeking answers to a ministerial statement.
Dr. Clark: By "they", I meant the Government collectively. I was not intending to address Back Benchers. I will, however, now address my remarks to the Minister. As the White Paper is under the name of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and various right hon. Members on the Front Bench today, I felt that it was right to refer to them as "they" and not to address the Minister who made the statement on the White Paper, as he was not a signatory to it. You may understand now, Mr. Speaker. why I did so.
Are the Government and the Minister not aware that in the past few months we have had the worst outbreak of anthrax for years? Do they not know that the current salmonella outbreak in north Wales and the north-west has tragically resulted in three deaths? If the Government had acted more quickly and more responsibly, the severity of the outbreak could have been avoided.
I take issue with the Minister's concluding words when he said:
"The proposals in the White Paper demonstrate the Goverment's commitment to food safety."
I am afraid that they do, and I am afraid that they will be found to be inadequate.
Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman fell below his usual standards in addressing the House. Having made a number of untrue and general allegations, he produced not one example of what he would like to have added to the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of stirring up anxiety and worry and refusing to give credit for the major changes that the Government have brought. The public will judge him on this as they judged him on the issue of the Chernobyl lamb, when he was seen to be wrong almost every time he spoke in the House.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention, for example, the major change in the legal onus upon those who provide food. No longer will they be able to rely upon the fact that they have a warranty from someone else. They will have to have due diligence in finding out whether the food that they offer for sale is of a standard suitable for the public. He did not mention, for example, that the new system will enable batches of food to be condemned not only when placed on sale to the public, but when in warehouses or landed in the docks. The hon. Gentleman did not mention, for example, that the registration of premises will mean that local environmental health officers and trading standards officers will know precisely which premises they should be inspecting and where they have to ensure that the standards are upheld.
The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that the document did not cover meat products. I believe that he picked that up from his hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary, who did not just try to suggest it, but said that he thought that it did not cover meat products. Nothing in the document suggests that it does not cover meat products. It does cover
1196
meat products and no one reading it could possibly imagine otherwise. What it has to do with the United States I do not know.
The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand irradiation, because he says that we need irradiation only when food is not good or wholesome. If food is not good or is unwholesome, irradiation will not cover up its badness, its taste or its smell, and it would be the last thing to use on unwholesome food.
The hon. Gentleman did not say that we are taking on board some of the toughest possible systems for protecting the public, first, by allowing irradiation, which in some circumstances improves on present safety techniques. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman deals with his own cooking arrangements, but if he uses herbs of any kind he must know that the mechanisms now used to ensure that certain imported herbs and spices are without contamination are methods which we do not want to see used, but they are the only methods unless we have irradiation. Irradiation will be centrally controlled, the premises upon which it can be carried out will have to be licensed, and everything that is irradiated will have to carry a clear statement that it has been irradiated.
The hon. Gentleman would do better if he were willing to support the Government's considerable changes and help by distinguishing between when, perfectly properly, true dangers, difficulties and anxieties should be expressed, about which people should be warned, and when people are trying to make money by stirring up anxieties unnecessarily.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is perfectly right to draw our attention to the negative irresponsibility of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? His proposals will be welcomed by most consumers, but will he work hard on a difficulty which emerges from the proposals? There is a loophole, because imported food does not meet the standards for food produced in this country. Will he do all that he can in Europe to ensure that standards in other European countries are as good as ours?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend rightly says that if we are to ask producers and retailers to uphold the highest standards they must not be undermined by products from other countries which do not meet the same standards. The Government intend to ensure that in all circumstances imported food meets the same standards. If it does not, it will be removed from sale.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the White Paper and the fact that legislation will be forthcoming, but may I push the Minister a little further? Will he ban bovine somatotropin and also insubstantial additives such as colour? Will he further ensure that pesticides which have been widely outlawed elsewhere, such as Alar, are proscribed? Above all—the Minister will be aware of this from his previous responsibility—will he ensure, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked, that if there is enforcement control in the legislation the enforcement agencies are given more resources than they have at present to make a reality of what will otherwise be only words?
Mr. Gummer: Between now and our having the parliamentary opportunity to introduce a Bill I shall be carefully considering resources and mechanisms, especially those for enforcement.
I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views about additives. My small son is very much affected by additives. I am prepared to lend my son for a day to the people who say that additives do not have an effect on children, so long as they give him a glass of a particular brand of soft drink. Once he has had that, they will not want him for the rest of the day. We all recognise the problems of additives and their effect on people. The only way to deal with such problems is to be honourable and to use the scientific evidence available to ensure that people are aware of what products contain and are able to make their own choices.
I do not want to ban things—I want people to choose what they want. Although my child is affected by tartrazine, it is up to me to provide products that do not contain it. If tartrazine is not dangerous and people want it, they should be able to have it. One is on a slippery slope once one starts banning things because one does not like them. We ban only products that are dangerous, and in the two days that I have been in this job I have taken action to do exactly that. We do not have the power to ban something that I consider to be dangerous, but it will have to carry a warning that will make it clear even to the least responsible consumer exactly what it contains.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Alar. One cannot ban everything that anybody in the world, of any standing, thinks is damaging. Each product must be tested extremely carefully, and one must accept the advice of independent testers and the best advisers on the subject. I am prepared to ban things only according to the very best advice. If there is significant doubt, I prefer to follow a safe route. When we are given clear advice in the opposite direction, we must base our actions on that. The British legal system could make it extremely difficult to prove the reason, rationale and sense of taking a decision to ban something.
BST is a synthetic version of a naturally occurring hormone; it is not a drug. Every cow that has produced milk has had it within its body. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must be tough on products that do damage, but we must be tougher on people who try to spread alarm about safe products.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has given comprehensive answers to a number of questions. I hope that the House will concentrate on the detail of the statement because I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I welcome the White Paper and I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to early legislation. Given the serious outbreak of salmonella poisoning in my constituency in north Wales, and in the north-west, will my right hon. Friend consider issuing early guidelines to butchers and delicatessens about the danger of letting cooked meat stand near raw meat and of using the same equipment for slicing cooked and raw meat? Does he agree—this is important for the Bill—that in the event of an outbreak, to ensure the fullest and most effective co-operation between
1198
local authorities as public health authorities and health authorities, there must be a full exchange of information between them?
Concern is being expressed in north Wales about the delay in announcing the source of the outbreak because the company suspected is so far implicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence and not scientific evidence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the Welsh Office was right to name the company believed to be the source earlier today, even though its identity was not 100 per cent. certain. People should be warned as early as possible.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that all hon. Members will want to express their sadness at events in north Wales and Chester. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales took exactly the right decision by insisting that the statement was made so that people were aware of the dangers and could therefore guard against the products.
My hon. Friend mentioned a problem that we have had in the past. In certain circumstances, but not in this one, we are prevented by the nature of the law from taking action. Under the forthcoming legislation, we shall be able to take such action. I will consider the possibility of further guidelines. However, the points that my hon. Friend raised have been made in almost every document year in and year out. He mentioned the need for training in food handling, which we shall be able to provide for in the legislation.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will have noticed that his "comprehensive strategy" in chapter 7, entitled "Conclusion", appears to occupy less space than the ministerial signature under the foreword. It offers little more than vague and rather banal comment. Does the Minister recognise that the Government's reduction in research on food health makes it more important to ensure that there are sufficient environmental health officers? What is the current shortage of environmental health officers? Is it not several hundred at least? What urgent steps will the Minister take to remedy that deficiency? Until he does that his document will not be worth the paper it is written on.
Mr. Gummer: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. The comprehensive strategy paragraph is merely a summation. All the details of what is being done are in the previous chapters. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at that carefully he would have seen a great deal there to support. He is wrong to say that the Government have cut back on food research. We have undoubtedly had an increasing commitment to food safety research. We are building and shall open a new laboratory in Norwich which will provide even better facilities for work being done in Reading and Norwich. The work that was done in Bristol will largely be concentrated there.
EHOs deal not only with food safety but with a range of other matters. The proportion of time that they spend on different matters varies between local authorities. We have already sent out a questionnaire to enable us to assess the resources and people necessary, the differences between local authorities and the best way to ensure that resources are available. The Government and the Opposition are not far apart in their determination to ensure food safety.
Sir David Price: I welcome the statement. First, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the legislation will insist that food is safe and wholesome when it enters

1199
the food chain? That follows from the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). Secondly, am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend will put more personal responsibility on the people who handle food throughout the food chain? My third question follows from that of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Will my right hon. Friend extend the authority of EHOs to car boot sales in football grounds and other places, which are currently outside their scope?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to another major change that will take place, which will ensure that we can take account of residues found in animals that are still alive. Until now, one of the problems was that we could not say that particular animals must remain on the farm and not go to slaughter until any residues above the maximum permitted level were removed from the body. That is an important new change and an earnest of our intent to ensure that at every stage in the food chain, not least the beginning, we stop microbiological growths or other contaminants.
My hon. Friend is right that we shall put more onus on the responsibility of food handlers, who will have to rely on their diligence rather than on warranties given by others. The legislation will apply to all premises where food is sold. We shall look carefully at the point about car boot sales, which was not in the forefront of my briefings in the past two days.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement and I am glad that it includes Northern Ireland. Will EHOs have greater powers to take action earlier, or will there continue to be a prolonged delay before people are warned? May I commend the Minister for including not only producers but the end handlers—the customers? We are living in an age in which we have grown careless. Is there any reason why, 17 years after the House suspended Stormont, we are still governing Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom by Orders in Council? Northern Ireland Ministers are signatories to the White Paper and at least one adviser is a Northern Ireland Member. Why should there be a further delay before the legislation comes into effect in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not discuss the position in Northern Ireland during this statement on food policy. I can assure him that if the Bill is enacted, it will be applied to Northern Ireland in the usual way. He is right to point to the need for greater powers to enable EHOs to act more quickly. If there is a serious outbreak, they will be able to obtain ministerial permission to act, without the long business of going through the courts and the rest, which may increase the dangers. They will be able to deal with products before they come on sale. That will solve a real difficulty. Previously people could say, "We are not going to put them on sale," but we shall now be able to stop them. The information is already good but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) suggested, we must seek ways to eradicate problems caused by different agencies failing to act together quickly.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as food is a biological product, there is no prospect of offering the consumer the impossible dream of absolute and permanent food safety? Does he agree that
1200
it is much better to concentrate, as he has done in the White Paper, on matters on which it is appropriate for the Government to take action by means of regulations, research and information? Does he further agree that it is incumbent on all parts of the food chain, from farmer through manufacturer and distributor to consumers. to bear in mind their responsibilities and work with the Government to make food as safe as possible?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is the right attitude. It is important to remember that the situation changes all the time. It is only just a year since the World Health Organisation said that listeria could be passed on in food and only more recently that we have been able to detect it by modern methods. People say that we must get rid of listeria in everything, but they do not realise that it occurs in everything. At what level can we accept a substance that is universally found?
It is not helpful for people such as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to talk about salmonella as though we were not now dealing with different strains. One strain can be transmitted through the ovaries, others are transmitted in ways that they could not be before. Others have a virulence and continuance that we have not seen before. To blame the Government is like blaming the 1914–18 Government for Spanish 'flu after the first world war.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister must be aware that I have continually raised the question of airline food over the past few months. Nothing in the report will deal specifically with that problem. A report by the three EHOs responsible for food safety at Heathrow said that a quarter of all airline food tested contained excessive levels of potentially dangerous bacteria, including salmonella and E coli, which is associated with faecal contamination. When I took the three EHOs to the Department of Health for a discussion with the Minister on that subject, there was a vast discrepancy between what they considered their powers to be and what the Department's advisers considered them to be.
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mrs. Clwyd: A written reply from the Minister of Health said that the Government did not intend to take any action to improve the codes of practice until spring 1990. Is that not an incredibly long delay, given the potentially dangerous food poisoning time bomb that the EHOs and the Government are sitting on?
Mr. Gummer: I shall look into the details that the hon. Lady put to me. The legislation will ensure that food handling, whether in airports, the smallest village shops or anywhere else, is covered by the regulations. I am sure that she will be happy about that. It was not necessary to refer specifically to airline food. Most of us would hope to be as safe when eating food on a aeroplane as in a restaurant.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my righ hon. Friend accept that the report will be welcomed not only by consumers but by the farming community, which is anxious to ensure purity of food and the highest standard of hygiene on the farm, whether in the production of cheese, poultry or anything else. It will welcome the Government's steps towards that end. I know that my

1201
right hon. Friend is interested in additives. Will he ensure that considerably greater details on additives are given on labels than at present? That would be a help.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have an interest in the second point to which he referred, and I shall look into it further. I support what he said about the farmers and producers of food in this country. They are wholly behind any measures that are designed to ensure that the public have full confidence in their products. It cannot be to the advantage of producers for customers to feel that there may be some doubts about what they buy. Hence I regret a comment made by the shadow spokesman on health which suggested that somehow the Department was so tied to farmers that it would not be concerned with the health of consumers. The interests of both are absolutely identical.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Why does the White Paper claim that the Government gave a warning to pregnant women about listeria as soon as there was a scientific basis for doing do? They know perfectly well that their warning was issued as recently as February this year although a hazard warning was sent to environmental health officers as long ago as November 1987. Why were pregnant women not alerted then so that they could take steps to safeguard themselves and their infants? Why do the Government say that they will set limits on freezer cabinet temperatures when the problem lies with chill cabinets? And why do they not mention cook-chill in connection with retailing, although that occupies acres of space and millions of pounds' worth of investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the Select Committee recommendations on listeria and listeriosis?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady will see from the response to the Select Committee—which will soon come to her and other hon. Members—exactly how the Government stand on that, and I will not try to prejudge it. The White Paper says what it says because it is true. We were the first Government in the world to give that warning, and I believe that we were the only Government so to do. The hon. Lady does herself less than justice by making such comments because in this case, as in many others, Britain has led the world in food safety.
Mr. Paul Marland: I give the White Paper a warm welcome, as will all responsible operators, be they producers or distributors of food. It demonstrates my right hon. Friend's willingness to address himself to contemporary problems. There is no doubt that the packaging, distribution and cooking of food has changed greatly in the last few years.
I took exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which suggested that all food would now be irradiated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Food safety is a shared responsibility. May we be assured that more information, and perhaps training, will be given not only to housewives but to cooks in how to handle frozen and chilled food when it reaches their kitchens?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is an important part of what we have to do.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to express severe disappointment with the Minister's statement and with the White Paper, which strikes me as superficial and not tackling the root of the problem. There is little in the Minister's comments about the producer, nothing about farms, factory farming and animal feeding, and little about food processing. Why do the Government continually blame the retailer, the housewife and the consumer for poor hygiene, when in truth the problem lies with production?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have read the White Paper and then asked that question. The reason why the statements in the areas about which he spoke do not appear in the document in extenso is that most of them are fully covered by our present legislation. The hon. Gentleman should compare our legislation now with that of other countries. In general, we have the most comprehensive, up-to-date and efficient legislation. He may have noticed that in the first comments that I made as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I emphasised that I saw it as a consumer Ministry.
Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. Friend's proposals will be widely welcomed by all who are not motivated by ignorance or political malice. Does he propose to seek consultative responses to his proposals and, if so, over what period will they be sought? Does he propose to deal with banning mineral hydrocarbons in food under the legislation that he outlined for a future Session of Parliament? Will the matters in annex 3 to the White Paper on diet and nutrition form part of legislative proposals in the Bill? If so, may we be told what they might be? Does he propose to introduce mandatory labelling of sugar, fat, salt and fibre in all food products?
Mr. Gummer: A number of the measures to which my hon. Friend refers are possible under our present legislation, and more will be possible under the extensions that will take place. We shall not be going in for further consultation. This is the result of four years of consultation and we must proceed to legislate as rapidly as parliamentary time can be found.
Mr. Tony Banks: This all seems to my hon. Friends and me to be an expensive PR exercise in dealing with the real problems of food handling, hygiene and safety. Where has the Minister been? People in south London are having to boil their drinking water, if they are lucky enough to have any. People in other parts of London are finding that there is so much pollution in the water—they can chew it. Half the country seems to have the runs; people cannot go swimming in the water-they can only go through the motions because so much raw sewage is being dumped in the sea.
All that is going on while the Minister presents this sort of document to us. There is nothing in it to say when a new Bill, or the various pieces of legislation to which reference has been made, will be brought before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman talks about things happening when parliamentary time can be found. Will the Queen's Speech detail action to implement the proposals in the White Paper? What resources will be made available to hard-pressed local authorities in inner-city areas, particularly in London, including Newham, to enforce the

1203
new regulations? Unless we have new resources, this will remain a lot of airy-fairy pie in the sky, which is probably polluted as well.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman wonders where I have been. His description of Britain leads me to wonder where he has been.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper will be as welcome as has been his action, in the past and for the future, to deal with salmonella? In the course of the review to which he referred, will he review the arrangements for poultry flock inspections so that they will be more in the nature of a rapier than a bludgeon? In particular, will he ensure that under the emergency orders, analyses of samples are carried out quickly? Will he ensure that, for the sake of small producers, the costs of poultry inspection orders are kept as low as possible? Will he also see that the same, and certainly no lower, standards are applied to imported eggs as are applied to eggs produced in Britain to make sure that they are free from salmonella?
Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly see that there is equality of standards. I shall also make sure that, so far as is possible, the cost of enforcement is as low as is acceptable in line with the highest standards of safety, which must come first. I shall be looking again at the way in which we deal with the poultry sector because I am concerned that public confidence in poultry should continue, and that can happen only if we make sure that our inspections are properly conducted.
Sir Dudley Smith: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's positive approach, which will do much to reassure the public after recent alarmist publicity, may I ask him whether, after all the exchanges that we have heard today, there is actually any more food poisoning now than there was 20 years ago?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must accept that there has been an increase in the incidence of food poisoning in some areas. Partly it has been a real increase, partly it has been because of new methods of detecting various kinds of microbiological activity, and partly it has been because the standard of living of many more people now enables them to buy all sorts of products. A much bigger variety of food is available. More and more people can now buy a much wider range of food, coming from many places and presented in different ways. However, many people do not
1204
follow the instructions or cook the food as it should be cooked. They often keep it at home in unsuitable conditions well after they have bought it. Those are the problems that we hope to tackle. We cannot hide that side of the matter and pretend that everything has to be done by the Government. Government and local authorities can do a great deal, but in the end consumers have to do a good deal themselves to make sure that they keep food properly.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the food industry in Britain is one of the most imaginative, innovative and hygienic in the world? Does he agree that the way in which Opposition Members are for ever trying to run down British industry—be it the food industry or the water industry—is appalling? Obviously I welcome the White Paper, but will my right hon. Friend reassure me that when the food Bill comes before Parliament it will not burden the food industry with too much red tape or over-regulation?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we have to have sufficient regulations to protect the interests of the consumer and of the food industry, because they have the same interest in people having confidence in the food that is produced and sold. However, my hon. Friend is right to remind the public outside that throughout this debate the Labour party has cast aspersions on British manufacturers, British workers, British firms and British farms, which are unworthy of them.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make it clear to the country that many of the protestations of the Labour party form part of its not-so-hidden agenda as exemplified in early-clay motion 1151, which is signed by many Labour Members and calls in direct terms for
"effective state control of the food industry."
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from policy statements of that nature is that, if a Labour Government were ever returned, food companies in Banbury such as General Foods, Mattesons, Walls and Lesmay, and their work forces would come under state control?
Mr. Gummer: I would have much more confidence in the safety of firms, the future of which depends on the confidence of the public, in a free market than I would in the safety of food produced in bureaucratic kitchens.

Dock Workers (Redundancy Pay)
5.12 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: 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 revelation of the improper use of public funds for the payment of redundancies in the dock dispute."
It has just come to light that a serious abuse involving the misappropriation of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being committed under the compensation arrangements following the ending of the national dock labour scheme. Several examples have been brought to my attention which show either that the Secretary of State for Employment is presiding over the illegal disbursement of large sums of public money or that he has drawn up the terms of the compensation scheme so loosely as to be guilty of gross negligence.
This is a specific matter because paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Dock Work (Compensation Payment Scheme) Regulations 1989 states explicitly that an employee is
"dismissed by reason of redundancy",
and therefore entitled to compensation, only if either his employer becomes insolvent or moves his business to a new location or decides that he needs fewer employees.
I have several examples showing that millions of pounds of Government money has been paid when none of those conditions applies. One port employer, English China Clay, made 72 registered dock workers redundant in the ports of Par and Fowey in Cornwall, while guaranteeing jobs back to all those who wanted them under new agreements to do the same work. The taxpayer had to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of those so-called redundancies, amounting to £1·25 million.
In another case, John Sutcliffe (Stevedores) Ltd., which used to supply 45 registered dock workers on a weekly basis to a company called DFDS, went into liquidation and paid severance payments to all the dockers. However, DFDS then took back 21 of the old Sutcliffe dock workers as its own employees, although refusing to recognise the Transport and General Workers Union. The taxpayer had to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of that manoeuvre, amounting to about £1·5 million.
In addition, the manager of Sutcliffe Stevedores has set up his own dock-work business and is employing 40 ex-registered dock workers although they are claiming and entitled to severance pay. Similarly, the manager of Lindsey Dock Services, whose company was liquidated, has now set up in business and has taken back eight dock workers although they are in receipt of severance payments.
This is an important matter because large sums of taxpayers' money are being used, not to fund genuine redundancies, but to finance a continuation of the same work in another guise, designed to achieve the de-recognition of the union. The compensation arrangements are being perverted by the employers.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
1206
"the revelation of improper use of public funds for the payment of redundancies in the docks dispute."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to consider the requirements of the Order and to announce my decision without giving reasons. I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He knows that my duty in considering his application is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for seven o'clock this evening. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
5.16 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree with me when I say that the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should be referred immediately to the National Audit Office and to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee because it raises matters of public interest.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will have seen in the national press in the past few days a lot of tittle-tattle about grace and favour offers being made to the former Foreign Secretary to appease his anger. These are not matters on which you would wish to rule, Mr. Speaker, but there is a matter——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a question on which I can rule, nor are they matters for me at all.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, they are not matters for you, but there is a matter for you. I understand that a grace and favour offer of the Speakership was offered to the former Foreign Secretary as part of an effort to keep him quiet. This is a matter——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that we are about to go on holiday, but that is taking it a bit too far.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: We have important business——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It must be a matter on which I can rule.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the Speakership is a House of Commons matter uniquely. The Speakership is decided upon by Members of Parliament and you were elected by Members of Parliament. Prime Ministers should not interfere. Would you not condemn the practice of any Prime Minister who made an offer of that nature to a former Minister?
Mr. Speaker: I know absolutely nothing about matters of that kind.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED

    PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (REGIONAL CONSEQUENCES)
    Mr. Tony Lloyd presented a Bill to require the inclusion in the Financial Statement and the Public Expenditure White Paper of a breakdown of taxation and expenditure by region and a statement of the impact of the changes

    1207
    proposed on each region: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Sir Victor Le Fanu, KCVO
pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the loyal and devoted manner in which Sir Victor Le Fanu, KCVO has discharged the duties of the Office of Serjeant at Arms; expresses its profound appreciation for his 26 years of exemplary service to the House; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.
One of the happy features of life is the way in which, by coincidence, it is open to me to speak in support of the motion in tribute to Sir Victor Le Fanu for his services to the House since 1963.
The House well knows of Sir Victor's active military career in the Coldstream Guards, after which he joined the office of Serjeant at Arms as long as 26 years ago as Deputy Assistant Serjeant at Arms. He then successively held the posts of Assistant Serjeant at Arms and Deputy Serjeant at Arms before taking up his present position of Serjeant at Arms in 1982.
Today we all have an opportunity, to pay tribute to Sir Victor for his work. He has won the respect of both sides of the House for the way in which he has carried out his duties. Hon. Members will recall the unfailing diplomacy and courtesy that they could expect from Sir Victor as he sought to meet the many calls on his Department, and. to deal with our often conflicting expectations and requests.
During his time in the House, there have been enormous changes in the services required from the Serjeant at Arms Department, and in the size of the estate that it administers. He has handled those changes with characteristic patience and skill. Sir Victor has always managed to maintain a careful balance between responding to new demands and resisting change for its own sake. In that sense, he has upheld the finest traditions of his office.
One increasingly important, sadly, and difficult aspect of the Serjeant at Arms' job is to maintain the security of the House. Concern about security has greatly increased during Sir Victor's time here. While we all deeply regret that necessity, I know that we have all welcomed the fact that that security has been in such capable hands.
Like his predecessors, Sir Victor has been required to produce a great deal from the limited resources that the House has placed at his disposal. He has always risen to that challenge admirably. During his time as Serjeant at Arms, we have managed to make substantial progress with new buildings, which we hope will do much to ease the pressure on the hard-pressed facilities of the House. Sir Victor has been much involved in that work, and while it has not made his task any simpler, I am sure that he is delighted to have played a part in making life a little easier for his successor, Sir Alan Urwick, who is well known to me from his two previous ambassadorial roles in the important cities of Cairo and Ottawa. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in extending a warm welcome to him.
Sir Victor's advice and assistance has been valued by successive Leaders of the House. I regret that, in my present role, I will not have the opportunity to benefit from his experience, but I can at least speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that I am extremely glad of this chance to express our gratitude and our warm wishes to Sir Victor for his retirement.
5.22 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I am delighted, on behalf of the Opposition, to support the motion, which stands in the name of the leaders of all parties in the House. I have been asked by the leaders of the Social Democratic party, the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists to express their thanks and best wishes.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the Ulster Popular Unionists.
Mr. Dobson: And the Popular Unionists, whose request has just been received.
It is appropriate that this motion should be in the names of the leaders of all parties because Sir Victor has always done his best to serve us all. His task was made more difficult, not by any shortcomings on his part, or that of his staff, but by our own continued failure to vote for the necessary resources for them to provide the services that we request. As a result, Sir Victor has spent much of his time being asked for the use of rooms that have not been built and for other services for which we were not prepared to vote the money. These unceasing demands that Sir Victor produce an unending quart from a pint pot, make all the more remarkable his unfailing courtesy when dealing with Members' demands and requests.
As the Leader of the House has said, in recent times Sir Victor and his staff have faced the difficult problem of trying to reconcile the need for the public to have freedom of access to their Members of Parliament with the conflicting need to secure the safety of this place as a symbol of democracy and the safety of hon. Members and staff. That has been a difficult balance to achieve, and it is only fair to attribute what has gone right to Sir Victor and his colleagues and any shortcomings to the decisions which we, as a House have made.
At the start of his adult life, Sir Victor was on active service with the Coldstream Guards in Italy, where he was wounded in action. His 20 years of service to this House have been rather less dangerous, but both phases of his career show his lifelong commitment to our country's democratic institutions, which was surely best demonstrated by his friendly demeanour and his willingness to listen to others and to respond to their needs—qualities that must lie in the hearts of those who sustain the democratic ideal. We all thank him for his service and we wish him a long, contented and well-deserved retirement.
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the motion has not been signed by the leader of every political party in the House, may it be amended accordingly?
5.25 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It gives me great pleasure to associate myself with what has been said about Sir Victor Le Fanu. I am glad to have this opportunity to express, on behalf of my colleagues, our gratitude for the service Sir Victor has given to the House.
I do not wish to detain the House by repeating the many points that have already been made, but the post of Serjeant at Arms requires special qualities, which Sir Victor has shown in abundance. He has provided a tight rein, a tight ship and the administration that we need to be able to do our jobs effectively.
1210
I shall pick out two special qualities of Sir Victor. The first is patience, which has certainly been required to put into practice the system of passes that provides the security that has already been mentioned. The second is courtesy, which we have all seen in abundance, and which is something for which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are especially grateful.
Sir Victor has a wide range of interests, so it would be inappropriate to wish him a restful retirement in Bath, but we wish him a happy retirement and we assure him that we are grateful for his services to us.
5.27 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: I agree with what has been said in tribute to the retiring Serjeant at Arms. Without the firm authority that you, Mr. Speaker, exercise over our exchanges in this place, the wise counsel of the Clerks and the orderly arrangements of our high steward, the Serjeant at Arms—without, so to speak the wig, the pen and the sword—I doubt whether the rest of us would get very far. You jointly provide the framework without which we eager, disparate and sometimes argumentative legislators could not do our work, and for that, and the skill and dedication you show in our service, hon. Members on both sides of the House are truly grateful.
It is therefore fitting that, when one of these guardians of our rights, our convenience and working arrangements, retires, we should acknowledge the debt and pay our tribute. It is truly astonishing that we have had only seven Serjeants at Arms in the past 100 years, and perhaps it says something about my great age that I have known, personally, five out of the seven.
The Serjeant at Arms does not have an easy role. He has to carry out his duties as housekeeper with whatever means the House itself wills and provides. He directs a large staff, who serve us admirably. He is responsible for our security—and never has that been a more onerous task than in recent years. Above all, he must possess qualities of firmness and tact.
Victor Le Fanu learnt how to manage people in a very hard school. He served with courage and distinction in the Coldstream Guards, and was badly wounded in Italy in 1944. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the regimental motto of the Coldstream Guards is "Nulli Secundus"—"second to none". Those of us who served in the Army know that that is a clarion call which evokes loyalty and devotion to one's regiment.
For over a quarter of a century, Victor Le Fanu has given that same loyalty and devotion to the House. He has done so in his own quiet, courteous and effective way. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, he has always been a good listener, has always done his level best to help individual Members. He has shown no favour to either side, and I can honestly say that he has been a true friend to us all. His service to the House of Commons has been "Nulli Secundus", second to none. We salute him for a task faithfully discharged; we thank him for all that he has done in our service; we wish him and Lady Le Fanu a long and happy retirement.
5.31 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will you forgive a mere Back Bencher, Mr. Speaker, for taking two seconds of the House's time to pay a genuine tribute to a very special man?
The House of Commons is not a very gentle place—it is a cruel crucible that does not always forge friendships or appreciation—but many of us who have been privileged to work with Victor Le Fanu know that he is a special kind of man. Although I support other hon. Members' recognition of his formal abilities, they have not highlighted—as I wish to—his wit, warmth and real wisdom.
Those of us who have been in the House for many years know that to serve Members of Parliament is not the easiest task in the world: they are a difficult, individual and occasionally anti-social group. This man has achieved—with tremendous effort and great kindness—something truly unique. He has served us all and given of his best, but he has done more than that: he has proved to us that those who serve the House of Commons with the degree of intelligence and ability that he has shown throughout his career do us great honour, and we miss them deeply when they go.
5.32 pm
Sir David Price: I intrude on these tributes to Sir Victor only for a moment. I believe that I knew him professionally before any other right hon. or hon. Member present today: we went through the Guards' depot as recruits on the same day, and no one can start lower in the British Army than as a recruit at Caterham.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braise) mentioned Sir Victor's military service. Our then squad sergeant went under the name of Lance-Sergeant Jelly, than which a more improbable name could hardly he imagined for a man who ended up as one of the Brigade of Guards' most distinguished regimental sergeant majors. We saw in Victor then the qualities that the House has seen since. He will always remain a sergeant in our minds, and anyone who has once been a guardsman is always a guardsman.
5.33 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I wish to recount, very briefly, an incident that occurred when Sir Victor first came into the service of the Serjeant at Arms' Department 26 years ago. When he had been in the House for three or
1212
four weeks and I was still a fairly new Member of Parliament, he said to me, "I do not know whether I shall be able to put up with all these late nights."
I remind the House that in those days we had many more late-night sittings—on the Finance Bill, for instance—and the junior member of the Serjeant at Arms' Department had to be present until 2 am, 3 am or 4 am. Sir Victor was well able to overcome his worries, however, and went on to give the House distinguished service. The difficulties that the Serjeant at Arms' Department experienced in those days may be balanced by today's different problems, but the way in which Sir Victor coped with a life that was very different from what he had previously experienced pays tribute to his persistence. We should all be most grateful for all that he has given over the past 26 years.
5.35 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: As yet another Back Bencher, I wish to pay tribute to Sir Victor for the service that he has given and for the friendship that he has extended to me, as the person responsible for the allocation of accommodation for Opposition Members and also as Chairman of the New Building Committee. His interest in that has already been mentioned. He was most understanding when Members had no reasonable accommodation.
I well remember, when I was first elected, being taken to the Serjeant at Arms when a request had been made by the then James Callaghan. The Serjeant at Arms said, "We have no accommodation for you, but I can let you have the key to a locker." I thought that I would have somewhere to hang my coat, and was very disappointed when I found that I could not even fit my briefcase into the locker. We have progressed since then.
Let me also pay tribute to Sir Victor's staff: they, 1.00, are deserving of credit for the understanding way in which they deal with Members, particularly new Members.
I well recall Sir Victor's understanding behaviour on a cold night in 1983. You, Mr. Speaker—then as Deputy Speaker—decided to ask for my removal from the Chamber, and he was far more understanding than you were.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the loyal and devoted manner in which Sir Victor Le Fanu, KCVO has discharged the duties of the Office of Serjeant at Arms; expresses its profound appreciation for his 26 years of examplary service to the House; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.

Summer Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 28th July, do adjourn until Tuesday 17th October.—[Mr. Fallon.]
Mr. Speaker: May I say to hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate that, if they limit their speeches to about 10 minutes or a little less, it will be possible to call all who have so far signified their wish to participate?
5.38 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: As a Member of Parliament, I have always believed that Parliament's main duty—and the main duty of those of us who comprise it—is to safeguard the individual against excessive bureucracy and oppressiveness. That is why I am raising a subject that should, I think, be debated and considered by the House. I believe that an inquiry should be held into the way in which the Official Receiver's office is run, how many mistakes it makes and why, when its clients are in understandable distress, it takes such an icy, offhand attitude.
Recently a constituent of mine was declared bankrupt, which came as a terrible shock to him, for—I am glad to say—he was no more bankrupt than I, or any other hon. Member present. My constituent, Mr. Raymond Francis Wood of Warwick, who had been in poor health, received an official form out of the blue stating that the court had ordered that he be publicly examined for insolvency. It said that he was liable to imprisonment unless he complied. The form came from the office of the Official Receivers at Atlantic house, Holborn Viaduct, London.
My constituent was shocked and lodged a protest. He then received a summons which said that upon the application of the Official Receiver
"the above-named bankrupt do attend the Court sitting in Bankruptcy at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand".
Dire warnings were attached about what would happen to him if he did not attend.
Those communications were followed by a letter written by a Mr. E. S. Burns, assistant official receiver. The letter sets out my constituent's name and the High Court number of the hearing. It says:
"You may have recently received an Order of the High Court of Justice requiring you to attend at the Court Premises for a Public Examination.
The purpose of this was to enforce the attendance of a bankrupt who bears the same name as you 'Raymond Francis Wood'.
Unfortunately a Land Registry Search for the name quoted was undertaken which appeared to indicate that the bankrupt had the same address as you.
My further investigation has revealed that you are not the same person whom the Official Receiver is seeking to be publicly examined.
In the circumstances I ask you to ignore the Order and return the same to the Official Receiver. The Court would be informed of the mistake made.
I apologise sincerely for any inconveniences caused."
Not unnaturally, my constituent was upset by that letter and was not prepared to accept that kind of apology. He declined to accept it and wrote to Mr. Burns and to me. In his letter to Mr. Burns, he said:
"After receiving my first High Court order I rang your Mr. Banwell and was told that your investigators had traced me to this address. I am not at all satisfied with this explanation as I have lived at this address for 22 years, since the house was built, and within 800 yards of it all my life. There is absolutely
1214
nothing to connect me with the person you require. I have never lived in London, never been in business for myself, and in fact I worked for the same Company for over 22 years.
As Mr. Banwell to told me he had issued five other Court Orders in this matter it would seem that you send them at random either from the Electoral Roll or Land Registry to anyone who happens to have the same name. If this is the case I feel very strongly that it is wrong and steps should be taken to stop this practice immediately, particularly as two days after my conversation with Mr. Banwell, in which he promised me an apology, I received yet another identical High Court Order, this time by recorded delivery. If I had been elderly or in ill health the consequences could have been extremely serious."
My constituent, Mr. Wood, suffers from some ill health. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with the tenor of that letter.
I immediately raised the matter with the then Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and he went into the details, obviously having an official brief on the subject. His letter to me concluded:
"Official Receivers have instructions that in circumstances such as existed in this case they should proceed with extreme circumspection and only after due enquiry. Clearly that did not happen here, for which I can only tender my and the Department's profound apologies. You will wish to know that officials have now reminded Official Receivers of those instructions and reinforced the necessity for them to be followed."
I hope that that is true. In my experience many bureaucrats shrug off such admonitions. They are well protected from the sack and carry on in their own bureaucratic, self-satisfied way.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend know whether a note has been placed upon their employment files giving a clear warning under the terms of the relevant Acts about the way in which they have behaved?
Sir Dudley Smith: I do not know, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. When such things happen, people should not be allowed to escape, because they would not escape in private industry or services.
Plainly, the Official Receiver's office has been inefficient and often relies just on names. If a person is unlucky enough to have a reasonably common Christian name that is coupled with a reasonably common surname, he is vulnerable. As I said to my constituent when I went into this matter with him, I found the conduct of the Official Receiver's office quite disgraceful. In its warning notice to my constituent, the office described him as "the above-named bankrupt". I think that the office committed libel by calling my constituent a bankrupt, and it would have been most embarrassing if the document had fallen into other hands, because it would have branded him with other people.
It is Parliament's job to curb the excesses and the inexcusable bureaucratic mistakes that can harm people. I hope that, by raising the matter, I shall perhaps have done something to ensure that in future other people will not go through the trauma that Mr. Wood had to endure.
5.45 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: Before we adjourn for the recess, we should pay attention to one important matter, even if we do so only briefly. It is unfortunate that, coinciding with a significant change at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, commentators are agreed that there is a change of attitude, especially towards

1215
the European Community. That has coincided with a series of what are perhaps the most forthright comments made by another Community Head of State about the British situation. I refer to the remarks by President Mitterrand about British policy towards European Community development, and specifically about how this development is seen by our Prime Minister and by the new Ministers who will have responsibility for EC matters.
During Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) raised the matter with the Prime Minister, who simply suggested that, because we had liberalised capital movements and the French had not, we should not be criticised. During business questions, the matter was briefly raised with the new Leader of the House, who, in his calm, emollient way, said that we did not necessarily have to respond to comments made by other friendly Heads of State about our conditions and policies.
I am aware that we are under pressure of time and I shall not seek to generate a general debate on the topic. President Mitterrand puts the matter well, with his Gallic succinctness. In talking about Britain, he says:
"This important country is caught between two contradictory desires: one to remain in Europe, and the other not to accept the trend set by the majority of the Community countries."
That is very true, and President Mitterrand puts his finger on the exact spot. Then he draws certain conclusions from that.
The President had earlier drawn certain conclusions from that. He talked about another intergovernmental conference having been agreed in Madrid heading towards economic and monetary union and the working out of Delors and said:
"what cannot be agreed by 12 may be done among 11, 10 or nine. I do not want this. It would create a new political situation which at the moment I do not welcome. Each of the 12, including the United Kingdom, is attached to the Community."
Hon. Members will note that President Mitterrand puts the whole matter in a fair and balanced way and does not seek to be pejorative about it—a lesson that could perhaps be learned by others. He continued:
"Let us play the card of agreement. But let us also accept that if this does not work, we should press on with those who want to.
So you do not rule out a new treaty agreed by all 12 members?
I do not exclude this."
That is a significant statement by a leading Head of State of a friendly European Community country. If such a person is moved to put things in such a blunt, although balanced, fashion, the Government have a responsibility to make some response and to say that the United Kingdom is not interested in a two-stage Europe. We shall fight our corner and argue our case, but we should be committed to the objectives that were set out clearly when we signed the Single European Act. We too want to participate in the influence and the considerable prosperity that will stem from economic and monetary union.
5.50 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Before the House rises for the summer recess, I shall put again the case for Manchester international airport. This airport is important because it is far and away the largest single employer in my constituency. I am anxious about something that I have raised time and again—the need for
1216
more transcontinental flights into and out of Manchester airport. We are continually being told about the congestion in the airports of the south-east, and we can do something about that by giving more flights to the north. For far too long, the north of England has been treated as a poor relation. I cannot understand why it is so necessary for people from the north of England to have to take the shuttle to London, change planes and fly from there when they want to fly to the continent.
I am grateful for all that the Government have clone for Manchester airport in the past 10 years. In that period, it has been the fastest expanding airport in the United Kingdom, if not in the whole of Europe. Recently, we had the approval of the rail link, which will bring about an enormous boost. We know that the Department of Transport regards the terminal 2 project that is under way as of key importance for the achievement of the Government's national airport policy objectives.
However, I am concerned that efforts should be made to ensure additional airport capacity, away from the congested south-east and into the north. That will riot only remove some of the congestion in the south-east but will combat the serious competititive threat posed to United Kingdom aviation interests by air service arid hub developments in northern Europe. That is why it is essential that we have a successful conclusion to the on-going negotiation with the United States Government about allowing additional United States airline services to serve the regional market via Manchester.
Recently, the Civil Aviation Authority published its interim advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which it stressed that it would wish to consider more fully the contribution that airports outside the south-east could make to resolving capacity problems before recommending solutions involving additional runway capacity within the London area. As Lord King, the chairman of British Airways, recently said, unless the capacity problems in the United Kingdom are solved soon, the impetus may be lost to alternative European gateways such as Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and, dare I say it, Brussels, which we have recently read could be actively promoted by British Airways in conjunction with Sabena.
In the British regions, we believe that there is a strong and attractive alternative—the opportunity to release from the London system the 25 per cent. of air travellers who are unnecessarily forced to use either Heathrow or Gatwick when they would be better served by using local airports. There would be two benefits of such a move: it would allow London to continue to meet the air travel needs of the capital, and it would ensure that the economic benefits from air service growth accrue in the British regions, not the more prosperous parts of northern central Europe. It cannot be sensible, taking only congestion into account, for London to be served by 367 weekly return flights to the United States, whereas Manchester has only 16.
I was pleased and encouraged to learn that the CAA said in its recent report that there may now be a case for linking air service licensing policy to the achievement of airports policy objectives. I think that it will be agreed that these objectives should take full account of regional economic benefits.
The United States airline services are a vital part of any strategy both to relieve congestion at the London area airports and to combat the competitive threat posed by alternative European gateways. For a long time, the

1217
United Kingdom has served as the transatlantic gateway to Europe through London. Recognising the congestion there and the evident strong demand levels generated away from the south-east, the United States carriers have, for several years, been expressing increasingly strong interest in servicing northern and central Britain through Manchester.
Applications for five routes are already on the table, from American Airlines, North West Airlines and PanAm with Delta Airlines expressing strong interest as well. In addition, the daily American airlines flight from Manchester to Chicago has operated since 1986, but only on a temporary permit. It should be remembered that United States airlines not only wish to serve the buoyant regional market but are also looking to service gateways into Europe. It follows that, if the United Kingdom is not willing to provide those gateways, the flights will, sadly, go instead to alternative European points. This could mean that the United Kingdom regions will increasingly find themselves served from European gateways such as Frankfurt and Paris, by airlines of other European countries, not directly or from London. If this happens, all the United Kingdom aviation industry will suffer. Surely this cannot be in the national interest.
To emphasise this point, I can tell the House that two American Airlines aircraft earmarked to fly this summer between Manchester and New York and to operate a second daily service to Chicago, are now flying instead to Brussels and Lyons. I understand that the French Government, about whom the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has just been talking, actively encouraged the airline to fly to Lyons as an instrument in regional policy, whereas in the United Kingdom we have allowed procrastinated negotiations to stall access to Manchester since 1986.
It is generally acknowledged that air service development brings strong economic benefits. Recent studies have shown that the American Airlines service to Chicago has already created 1,200 jobs. Moreover, the additional route licences applied for to serve Manchester would generate an estimated income of £45 million a year, and 3,500 jobs. Furthermore, it is essential that Britain's accessibility is maintained if it is to be competitive in the single European market. The United Kingdom should not allow the emphasis to shift away by adopting policies that drive air service development to continental Europe. I know that it is not entirely in the interest of the United Kingdom to give away such rights to the United States; nobody could dispute that. However, there is a clear need for a balanced package that weighs the regional economic benefits and the strategic European dimension against pure airline economics.
I recently received a helpful letter from my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport on the subject of route licensing, which explains that the ball is in the hands of the United States Government. However, without wishing to weaken the British negotiating stance, I urge that we seek a reasonable price at the talks due to take place later this year.
It is essential that a speedy conclusion be reached in the negotiations, which have already been going on for four years. Prior to the White Paper on airport policy, the Department of Transport was looking to promote
1218
Manchester as an alternative gateway, and hence only moderate reciprocal rights were sought. However, strong airline interest was expressed subsequently in the United States, to which the British negotiators responded by forcing up the price. For example, United Kingdom demands have risen from six behind points in early 1988 to 90, at one stage, in the most recent negotiations earlier this year.
In the talks that take place in October, or, I hope, sooner, I trust that the Department of Transport will weigh fully the costs of delay within the wider European context and ensure that a deal is struck at a reasonable price that is acceptable to all. If the talks break down there is a real risk that the emphasis will shift so firmly to the European mainland that the Amricans may withdraw their interest in serving Manchester and concentrate on European gateways, with the attendant benefits being lost to the United Kingdom. That must not be allowed to happen.
Manchester international airport is of enormous importance to the economy of the north of England. At one stage, it was hailed as the jewel in the crown of the north of England. I hope that, to relieve congestion in the south-east and to ensure that the north gets a fair deal, my right hon. Friend will take note of what I have said. We should have a statement on this important issue before the House rises for the summer recess.
6.2 pm
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that should be of concern to the entire House. I refer to the dock strike and the activities that have been taking place in dockland over the past few weeks.
The Government constantly claim that they are an Administration of non-intervention in industrial relations. In fact, it was the hand of the Government that removed the national dock labour scheme, which had served the industry well since 1947. It was said on Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill, and in Committee, that one of the reasons why the Government felt that the scheme was no longer relevant was that it was 42 years old. If that is the criterion on which we are to base the usefulness of institutions, this place should close down. The other place should certainly go. There are many other institutions that are 400, 500 or 600 years old, and some are even older than that. Should they all be scrapped? It is a weak argument to say that an institution or a scheme should be abolished merely because of its age. The scheme was introduced because of the consequences of the second world war and to eliminate the foul practices that obtained in the dock industry between the wars.
The Government have shown by their actions that they are not an Administration of non-intervention in industrial relations. They are creating a climate in which it is virtually impossible for a trade union to pursue its proper responsibilities in representing its members without finding itself before the courts. Injunctions will be served upon it, and it will find that its finances are threatened. The Government argue that they have a right to introduce legislation that has that effect, but have they reflected on the long-term effects of such legislation?
We have often heard Conservative Members express sympathy for the Polish workers, for the trade unions in the Soviet Union and for the deprivation of workers' rights

1219
in countries, where it could be argued that the unions are part of the state machine. Tears are being shed for the Polish workers and for other workers elsewhere, but it is far easier to have a strike in Turkey or in some Latin American countries—countries which have been referred to as tinpot dictatorships—than it is in Britain.
The Government should be aware that the trade union movement was established to combat the power of capital and to achieve some balance in the industrial world so that hyper-exploitation could be eliminated and men and women could work in decent conditions for decent wages. It is depressing that the balance has swung so heavily in favour of the employer and of capital. When the Dock Work Bill was being considered in Committee, employers were telling Ministers that they had no intention of taking advantage of the abolition of the scheme to introduce practices that had been eliminated as a result of the legislation of 1947. Hands were placed on hearts and employers said that they would be reasonable men. We were told that there was no need to fear the removal of the scheme, because employer's attitudes had changed and they were now men of reason. On the first day of the strike, the men of reason were sacking employees with 25 years' experience in the industry. Some of the men had been working in the industry for as long as 30 years.
I have seen many acts of victimisation in the docks over many years, but probably the most blatant was the sacking of 16 shop stewards at Tilbury while other ex-registered dock workers were allowed to return to work. That demonstrates the almost obsessional hatred that the Government have for the trade union movement. There have been examples of this in many industries. It appears that we, the Opposition, must consider seriously whether the events of the past few weeks constitute a challenge to the right to strike. The events at Tilbury suggest that, if a person or persons go on strike, they can be faced immediately with the choice of returning to work or losing their jobs. In many instances, if not all, men and women will be compelled to return to work. Should we condone the actions of employers that result in the removal of the right to strike?
When the Minister replies, I ask him to tell the House whether the Government, and the Prime Minister especially, still believe that there is a right to belong to a trade union, and, more importantly, a right for the individual to remove his labour if the conditions in which he is working are unacceptable. Those issues relate directly to the foundation on which the trade union movement was built. I am talking of the tradition which has been upheld by the movement, and which has served industry well over the years.
I do not doubt that, during the summer recess, there will be more trouble in the docks. In the past decade, or possibly the past two, there has been a better relationship in the docks between employers and dock workers, and the strike record will prove that that is so. There have been dramatic changes in the industry, which prove that dockers are not adhering to outdated and outmoded practices. How can it be argued that dock workers are following outmoded practices when they are working with machinery which is worth in excess of £500,000? Dock workers are now skilled technicians. All the old practices have long since left the industry.
The Government have acted with pique, spite and hatred towards the trade union movement. However, I
1220
believe that, at the end of the day, they will relent, because as long as that attitude prevails, industrial relations will remain in the state that they are today.
6.9 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Part of me is delighted that I have the opportunity to address my remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, because, as he is a most distinguished and eminent legal figure, he will appreciate my remarks more than most.
The Government are about to commence, or are in the course of drafting, their legislative proposals on the work and organisation of the legal profession. As the House has not debated the Green Paper, still less the proposals in the White Paper announced only last week, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not mind if I take a moment or two to set out why I and many other lawyers opposed the Green Papers and are extremely apprehensive and rather unhappy about the White Paper, while conceding that it makes some improvements.
Contrary to popular mythology, the Bar's opposition to the Green Papers had nothing to do with keeping the earnings of the Bar high. The proposals would certainly drive many barristers into becoming solicitors, in which capacity they would earn a considerably higher income. That is made self-evident by two facts. The average income of a solicitor in a City of London firm is approximately double that of a barrister, in London chambers, of similar age and experience, as assessed by independent financial experts. Also, the Crown prosecution service in London pays £250 per day for a solicitor for precisely the same work that it pays a barrister £100 to do.
I had five main concerns about the Green Papers, which have not been dispelled by the White Paper.
First, as there has been no great surge of public criticism of the legal profession, why is it necessary to reject the advice of the Benson royal commission on legal services in 1979 that changes such as those now proposed are unnecessary? What has happened to make the Government eat their own words, given that they confirmed in 1981, 1983 and 1987 that they also did not consider any changes to be necessary?
Secondly, if the profession of solicitor has all the advantages of being a member of the Bar, plus its own very considerable attractions, why should graduates want to go to the Bar? If they do not, the independent Bar will dwindle and die. Nearly everyone concerned with the law agrees that the independent barrister, like the surgeon or specialist in medicine, is worth preserving. The Bar provides a high-quality, professional service of particular expertise which serves the consumer well.
Thirdly, the end of the independent Bar would be bound to mean higher legal costs. They would not be brought down, but driven up—as the figures I gave earlier show—for two reasons. The Bar enjoys lower overheads than many solicitors' practices, and the cab-rank principle provides a faster legal service, which means a cheaper legal service for the community.
Fourthly, the availability of lawyers in small towns and villages will diminish if solicitors, because of losing their conveyancing bread and butter, are forced to move to the bigger towns and cities to stay in practice. People living in small towns and villages would no longer find solicitors

1221
easily available locally and would have to pay more to get to and to use the services of those in the bigger towns and cities.
Finally, the introduction of contingency fees, however gentle its proposal in the White Paper may be, would be likely to lead down the slippery slope of a doctrine of "win at all costs", which would considerably lower the integrity of the British legal system. Those who opposed the Green Papers took their stand on grounds of increased cost, the diminished availability of legal services and the lowering of quality.
The judges responded angrily and almost unanimously—though there was never any threat of strikes, as malicious voices in the media pretended. The judges were concerned that, according to the Green Papers, if rights of audience were extended to solicitors, the issuing of permits to practice advocacy in the higher courts would be by a state bureacracy, which would be wholly undesirable in principle, and possibly pernicious in practice.
In response to those strong criticisms, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, "I am listening, and although I did not intend to give you a White Paper, I shall—so that you can consider my further thoughts. I will stick to my original intention to permit the right of audience in the higher courts to solicitors; to open up the restrictive practice of conveyancing by solicitors; and to introduce contingency fees because that change may give some people more access to lawyers and to justice." But my noble and learned Friend has in effect said, "I will leave the circumstances in which the solicitor will actually have a right of audience to the solicitors' professional organisation, to the predominantly lay advisory committee, and finally to the judges. I will also hedge about the conveyancing extension with certain protections for the lay client, who might otherwise receive no independent advice before buying a house."
The Bar's response was dynamic, statesmanlike and very constructive, and moved a long way to meeting the solicitors' profession without going so far as to concede the right of audience. The pace of reform undoubtedly quickened because of the Green Papers, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is due considerable credit for that.
The Bar has proposed many reforms, and some of them are already in train. They are, for example, improving the vocational course at the Inns of Court school of law and of continuing legal education; overhauling the pupilage system, its payment, and the availability of tenancies in particular; the introduction of freedom for barristers to advertise; the establishment of an alternative to the chambers system, to provide cheaper, wider and better access by the public; easing the route by which a solicitor who wants to practise in the higher courts can easily become a barrister; and giving direct access to the Bar by professionals, so cutting out unnecessary activity by solicitors.
Apart from being the most far-reaching proposals ever set in motion in the legal profession, they do more to make legal services widely available at cheaper cost and without any reduction in quality than the Government's counter-productive proposals would ever achieve.
Now we have arrived at an impasse. The Government have placed responsibility for working out the rules for
1222
extended rights of audience in the hands of the professions, the advisory committee and the judges. In effect, they kicked the ball into touch. The questions are whether judges will want to see rights of audience extended very far, and whether solicitors, or the Crown prosecution service, having won a victory in principle, will want to push the judges into conceding far wider rights of audience.
If little changes in practice and the Bar does not dwindle away, I will not feel that the whole exercise has been too disruptive. But if much changes in practice, either great harm will be done to the system or there will be warfare between the judges and the Government of a kind that cannot possibly be conducive to the proper administration of justice.
What, then, is to be done? As the House rises for the summer recess, I make three suggestions. First, between now and the final drafting of the Bill, I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will have further consultations with the Bar Council and the Law Society to see whether blood on the carpet can be avoided and the Bill drafted in a way that will maximise co-operation and minimise confrontation, which is what the Bar and most of us want.
Secondly, the Government should take another look at the extent to which the Bar's response will make for cheaper, more available and higher-quality legal activity.
Finally, the Government should consider just what it is that ordinary people complain about when they complain about lawyers. I suggest that they complain that they are too costly, which the Government's proposals will not remedy. They complain that the lawyers are not available when they want them, which, again, the Government's proposals will not, on balance, remedy. Ordinary people who have no great access to funds want more available legal aid. I agree that limitless legal aid is not desirable, but if, as Professor Cyril Glasser of London university assures us, 10 million people have dropped out of eligibility for legal aid in the past 10 years, a Government bent on wider access of the law to the consumer must at least look at legal aid before they seek refuge in divisive and counter-productive legislation.
As I said at the beginning, I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to his new position, although I am sad that he left his previous one. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind the points that I have made so that the best advantage can be secured from all the proposals for the future of our legal system.
6.21 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in some respects made an interesting speech. He is a Conservative Member who, on every possible occasion, attacks restrictive practices, over-manning, and the rest. He does not have a sympathetic word for the dockers or anyone else. But when it comes to his own profession, the hon. and learned Member is steadfast in his defence of the existing position. No one could be a firmer defender of the status quo in the legal profession than the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may ask, "Why not?" He is a barrister and he considers that certain practices must be defended. I hope that on future occasions, when

1223
some of my right hon. and hon. Friends try to describe the situation in industry and the viewpoint of the people who work in it, he will be a little more sympathetic.
Mr. Lawrence rose——
Mr. Winnick: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because of the time limit. I understand the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make.
I want to speak on a subject which directly concerned the Leader of the House in his previous position of Foreign Secretary. Before I do, I should say that the reshuffle will in no way change the deep-seated hostility that is felt in the country towards the Government's policies. High mortgage interest rates, the decline of the economy, the notorious poll tax—it is a poll tax; even the Government's literature refers to the "so-called" poll tax—water privatisation and the attack on the NHS all explain why there is such a deep-seated hostility to the Government. There is no doubt that, in the recent European elections, the Conservative party suffered badly.
The only other point that I want to make about the reshuffle is one on which many people have reflected and to which I referred during business questions. I am sure that many hon. Members will have heard a group of activists at a Conservative club on the radio this morning who were hostile to the Prime Minister. Some of them described her conduct as being like that of a dictator.
It is not for me, a mere Opposition Back Bencher, to defend the Home Secretary or the Leader of the House. If the Prime Minister wishes to treat her Cabinet colleagues in the way she has done, that is her business. If she has an irresistible desire to humiliate, as she undoubtedly has done, the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary, that is her right.
It is clear that the Home Secretary considered that his position was perfectly safe. We read in the press that he was eating his sandwiches on Monday, when, lo and behold, he heard various rumours that his job had been offered to the then Foreign Secretary despite his having been given all those private assurances by the Prime Minister.
I do not understand why Cabinet members are willing to put up with such conduct. The only possible explanation is that they believe that if they stood up to the Prime Minister they would lose their jobs more quickly than they otherwise would.
The views that I have just expressed are clearly the views of Conservative activists, and I imagine that, in the Corridors of this place, enough Conservative Members have been more or less saying in private what I have just said in public. It would be foolish to deny that.
The matter that I am about to raise is the one that I raised before the previous recess. I do not wish to be misunderstood in any way, and it is no reflection on my hon. Friends that at that time I was the only hon. Member to raise what was happening in China. I congratulated the people associated with the pro-democracy movement in China on their courage.
As I have said before, and I repeat now, it is all very well in a democracy to demonstrate. We know that sometimes the police can be rough, but there is all the difference between demonstrating in a democracy and trying to do so in a dictatorship. I have the greatest respect for those in dictatorship countries, in almost totalitarian conditions,
1224
who are willing to do what the students and workers did in China. Those people were not saying that they wanted all the civil rights and liberties that Britain has gained and which exist in most, if not all, of the countries of western Europe. They wanted only some basic rights which were being denied them, so they demonstrated, and what an impressive demonstration it was. For weeks on end, they demonstrated in the way that we all saw on television. I say again that I have the greatest respect for them.
The manner in which that demonstration was crushed, the massacre that took place, aroused a feeling of revulsion not only in Britain but throughout most countries, and certainly throughout all the democracies.
The Chinese authorities peddled the lie—like Dr. Goebbels they no doubt believe that if they repeat the lie often enough people will believe it—that there was no massacre and demonstrators were not shot. We know that to be a lie. We know of the bloodshed and the hundreds of people who were massacred in Tiananmen square, and what happened on that occasion is never likely to be forgotten in China.
The time will come when we see in China what has happened in countries in eastern Europe. In 1956, the Hungarian uprising was crushed and Imre Nagy was hanged. Yet only a few weeks ago, his remains were buried with great honour. What happened in Hungary a few weeks ago is likely to happen at some stage in China.
In view of the experience of the Leader of the House as Foreign Secretary, I want to ask him what will be the attitude of the United Kingdom and the EEC if terror continues in China. There was a report in The Guardian today, and there have been other reports, one issued by Amnesty International, on the subject of the repression and the way in which people considered to be in any way involved with the pro-democracy movement are arrested, tortured, certainly humiliated and often executed.
Like all dictators, the Chinese leaders say that they want business to carry on as usual. They see no reason why western countries should take economic action against them. If the state of terror continues, can Britain and the European Community turn a blind eye and say that it is all very unfortunate, but we should have business as usual? A warning should go out from the Governments of the European Community and other countries—I only wish that the Soviet Union would associate itself with that—that if the Chinese authorities continue their repression of their own people economic action is bound to be taken.
I hope that, in the negotiations that I understand will take place between the new Foreign Secretary and the Chinese leadership, the point will be made clearly that, after 1997, Chinese troops should not be stationed in Hong Kong. One development above all else would give some feeling of security to the people of Hong Kong, leaving aside matters such as the right of abode, and that is the view that the state of terror and repression in China had ended. That would produce in Hong Kong a feeling of more security than exists at present.
There is ambiguity, to say the least, in the agreement signed between Britain and China over the stationing of Chinese troops. I hope that the point will be made clearly in the negotiations with the Chinese leadership that it would be quite inappropriate—all the more so after the terrible events of the past few weeks—for Chinese troops to be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997. If a guarantee could be given by the Chinese that no troops would be stationed there, it would do a great deal

1225
of good in trying to reassure the people of Hong Kong that they have a future in that place once the agreement is implemented in 1997.
6.31 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I can predict, sadly, that before Parliament meets again after the summer recess, many innocent people in Northern Ireland will have been slaughtered in obscene acts of terrorism. I ask hon. Members, therefore, to think about my part of the United Kingdom, which is haunted by the spectre of the terrorist.
Next month is the anniversary of the arrival in Northern Ireland 20 years ago of extra soldiers of the regular Army to be used to act as a barrier between religious groupings in different parts of the Province. It was not long before the soldiers, who were originally greeted as peacekeepers, were spat on, reviled, shot at and killed. Twenty years on, the situation is worse, although to a greater extent the Royal Ulster Constabulary are in the front line in the maintenance of law and order.
I want to pay tribute, as most hon. Members would want to do, to all the police officers and soldiers, both in the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, who serve and have served in Northern Ireland where so many of their comrades have gallantly given their lives to save others and to defeat terrorism. Civilians—men, women and children—have also been injured, mutilated or killed, sometimes in the most terrible atrocities, although the Provisional IRA has not hesitated to destroy human life here in mainland Britain and on the continent. Every death is a tragedy. Throughout the Province, mothers, wives, children, husbands and fathers mourn the loss of loved ones who have died in such frightening circumstances; sadly, relatives here in Britain also mourn those who have been murdered by the evil and vicious members of the Provisional IRA.
To the outside world, Northern Ireland appears to be a war zone, where hate triumphs and people are bitterly divided into two warring camps. Those who live in Northern Ireland and those who visit Northern Ireland know differently. Northern Ireland is, despite its media image, a beautiful place, with charming and generous people. The majority of the people of Ulster wish to live normally and harmoniously with their neighbours, regardless of politics or religion. The vast majority reject the gunmen who live like parasites on their communities, whether in Republican or Loyalist areas.
The vast majority of Ulster people yearn for peace and the prosperity that peace will bring to that battered part of the United Kingdom. I think especially of senior citizens in the community who fervently wish to see an end to strife before they die. I think above all about the young generation who are being denied the normal opportunities which peace can provide—many of whom, through frustration, seek employment here in England or elsewhere.
The people and politicians of Northern Ireland cannot defeat the terrorists, but they can make a significant contribution to the elimination of terrorism by giving their full, unqualified and unequivocal support to the forces of law and order. The politicians have a major role to play in the restoration of normality. They should make a contribution, but the people also have a contribution to
1226
make and they must endeavour at all times to ensure that, wherever a terrorist roams, the police are notified of his activities.
I call on all constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland to get together to see what political progress can be made in the next six months. I know that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a symbol of the betrayal of Unionists by a Conservative Government, but politicians cannot for ever remain in their trenches. I appeal, therefore, in this House to politicians, to official Unionists, to Democratic Unionists, to the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party and all other constitutional politicians, to suspend their antagonism and to begin to talk.
The appointment of a new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland provides an ideal opportunity to end the four years of political stagnation which existed under his predecessor. That change of Ulster Secretary should be the cue for Ulster politicians to come together. I have already offered through the media in Northern Ireland to chair such discussions, as the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I shall shortly be writing to the leaders of the constitutional parties that were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Of course it is easier not to talk. It is not difficult to find excuses to justify a refusal to get together. Talking with other constitutional politicians exposes one to criticism and perhaps even to charges of betrayal. However, in my judgment, politicians, in the interests of Ulster people young and old, must get together, must risk attacks, must endure insults and must attempt to devise a solution that would enable political progress to be made in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that there is tremendous good will in the Province. As I said earlier, I know that the people of Northern Ireland are marvellous, generous, charming, humorous and kind-hearted. It is extraordinary that some can hate each other out of their love of God. For the love of God, let us start building bridges, talking together, making peace and providing a future for the young people of Northern Ireland.
6.38 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I share the sentiments expressed in the last part of the speech made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). The message must go out not only to hon. Members but to politicians elsewhere and people everywhere that it is high time that a solution was found in Ireland.
The motion before us calls upon us to adjourn for the summer recess. I am always concerned that such debates do not allow us a vote. Some Conservative Members ask for time to debate major issues and then, a soon as they have finished their speech, they get through the door, pick up their cases and go to Heathrow for their flights to Bermuda. I am not one who would do that.
I call for special consideration to be given to the question that this House should not adjourn. I do so because I want time to be allowed for a debate that Welsh Members have been demanding for the past five or six weeks—a debate on the National Health Service in Wales. We have asked, we have begged and we have pleaded. I did not say this at business questions, when I asked the Leader of the House a question regarding his new appointment, but I welcome him to his position as Leader of the House because, as a Welshman, he might be more sympathetic to

1227
our demands in the future—especially our demands for health debates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will he dealing with a Secretary of State for Wales who has not been elected to represent a Welsh seat and who is probably more interested in representing his own constituency, which is Worcester.
We have asked for a debate on the National Health Service in Wales not only because of the long waiting lists or the under-funding of hospital services in Wales but because we fear the Government's new proposals and their effect on our constituents. In 1988, when we debated hospital waiting lists in Wales, we were promised that various sums would be invested in new hospitals and in reducing waiting lists. I regret to report that waiting lists in Wales have not been reduced since that promise was made in 1988. As a matter of fact, they have substantially increased. That is one reason why I think that the House should not adjourn.
We should be considering the thousands of people who are waiting for hospital beds, for hospital treatment or for consultants to be available to perform major surgery which may save their lives. Many people who are now waiting for hospital treatment will no longer require it when the time comes, because they will have passed away, as has happened to a number of my constituents who were in that position.
The Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament tabled an early-day motion, which said:
"That this House notes that on March 1st, 1989, the Secretary of State for Wales told the House that he was about to issue papers, similar to those issued for England, setting out his proposals for the implementation of the Health Service White Paper in Wales, that thereafter he would issue papers of specific Welsh proposals, and that there would be plenty of time for discussion during which he would be anxious to hear the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House; further notes that comment from all levels of the health service and from the general public in Wales amounts to outright rejection of the White Paper proposals; and calls on the Secretary of State either to withdraw the White Paper proposals from having any application to Wales or to take immediate steps to honour his three-fold pledge of March 1st and allow full debate on his proposals within Wales."
Since then, we have received documents from the Royal College of Nursing documents about NHS funding and documents about the crisis in the acute hospital sector. We have had comments from a research team dealing with matters affecting elderly people and the review of March 1989.
Will the Leader of the House bring pressure to bear on the Secretary of State for Wales—whom he will be joining as yet another wet in the Cabinet, no doubt—to ensure that in future, when we request debates on major issues such as this, we are afforded the opportunity to have them, bearing in mind that, of 38 Welsh MPs, 25 are Labour Members? Surely that is sufficient to allow us a debate when we request one.
It is no good the Secretary of State for Wales hiding behind all sorts of excuses, as he has been doing for weeks now. I renew my request, which is supported by all my hon. Friends, that the documents should be published—as promised on 1 March—explaining how the Secretary of State for Wales intends to apply the White Paper in Wales and that we may have an early opportunity for a full debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) need not get all excited. I have not finished yet. I was told 10 minutes, and I have only taken four so far.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Eight.
Mr. Powell: All right; it is eight.
There are many Health Service matters that I could raise, and I am sure that I should receive a sympathetic hearing from the Leader of the House, given that he was born in Port Talbot.
Another major issue that the House should debate before we go into recess is the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950. The House had an opportunity for a full debate, action was taken and a proposal presented by the Government. We won that debate, although I am sorry to say that that is the only time in 10 years when the majority of Members have rejected major legislation that the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to introduce. Although we rejected any amendment to the 1950 Act, we constantly see traders, large and small, trading on Sundays and thus deliberately flouting the law. When I asked the Prime Minister a question some years ago, she replied that she would ensure that all the laws of the country were upheld. Why is not the law on Sunday trading given the same consideration by magistrates, courts, judges and chairmen of magistrates courts, to ensure that it is enforced?
Let me ask the Leader of the House three specific questions. First, what action does he think the Attorney-General is taking to ensure compliance with the law, concerning the admitted illegal Sunday opening by Heal's and Habitat, both shops in the Storehouse group? Secondly, will he ask the Attorney-General whether he will now consider prosecuting the chairman, chief executive and other members of the Storehouse group under the aiding and abetting provision of section 44 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, concerning the admitted flagrant breaches of the Shops Act 1950 by Heal's and Habitat shops? Thirdly, in the light of the ruling on 27 June 1989 by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, what guidance will the Attorney-General now consider giving to local authorities about their statutory duty to enforce the law on Sunday trading? I would like answers to those questions when the Leader of the House replies.
The House should not adjourn because we have not yet debated the major reform in legislation protecting children—the people in this country who have no rights or proper opportunities to advance their own cases. When can we have an early debate on the Children Bill? What will happen to the family courts which have been requested? I know that 10,000 grandparents have been pleading for their rights as grandparents to be legally represented at court to allow them to plead for their grandchildren. We should debate those matters; we should not adjourn until October while all those grandparents and children are not protected by the laws of this country. It is high time that action was taken to remedy that failure.
6.51 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is very welcome in his new position on the Government Front Bench because we know of his considerable sympathies for the individual. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I want to propose that the House should not adjourn for the summer recess. However, if we get our way, I am sure that we would be the most unpopular Members of Parliament ever and would probably act as leads for the return of capital punishment.

1229
The House should not adjourn until there has been an environmental audit in my constituency. Although I have every confidence in the new Secretary of State for the Environment and his team, what is happening in my constituency is an extreme example of what might be happening elsewhere in the country. The events in my constituency will affect my constituents profoundly over the weeks, months and years ahead.
Many of my constituents who have made plans for the future, and other long-established communities, feel trapped by a steamroller of inevitability which crushes their views and faith in democracy and their ability to influence their own destinies. In these green days, people talk about the rape of the countryside. I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to the fact that there is a multiple rape in my constituency. Four environmental hazards in one constituency are excessive by any standards.
Unknown until the beginning of this month, a proposal has come to light to add a further option to the A453 access route to Nottingham. That new option is known as the green route. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in his former capacity as the Minister for Roads and Traffic, and said:
"I am now horrified to discover that a quite unacceptable new proposal described as the Green Route running from Barton past Clifton Wood and over a new bridge to Beeston has been added to the alternative proposals. Everyone familiar with the debate over the years has always expected that the choice would lie between what is now called the Red Route through Clifton and the Yellow Route which would be a Clifton Bypass between Clifton and Ruddington. I did not know that your engineers were working up another proposition as an alternative to those two. I hope that the Green Route will not complicate the arguments for very long, because as shown on your plans, it would be an environmental disaster."
I can only agree with that completely. People in Beeston Rylands purchased their houses beside the river and the canal. Those are modest, not grand, houses and their owners value their valley and their environment enormously, as do all the other people who use the Trent valley as a recreational area.
There are three proposals to opencast the spine of the Erewash valley. If the proposals go forward, my constituents in relatively close communities can look forward to 20 years of development involving dust, dirt and the total destruction of their landscape in a completely unnecessary way. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) shares my views on that.
At a recent exhibition, the Coal Board called the first proposed site for opencasting the "Engine lane" site, which will involve the dereliction of the Moorgreen colliery which is famous in D. H. Lawrence's work because he based many of his stories there. British Coal does not reveal that the other four fifths of the area is known as Beauvale—obviously it has that name because it is very beautiful. Those who are familiar with Lawrence's work will be aware of his contrast between the industrialised east side of the area with its pit, and Hagg's farm and going to Miriam to escape the awful pressures of the industrial revolution. British Coal now wants to introduce a modern industrial revolution into an area which, even in Lawrence's day, was not touched. British Coal is talking about a five-year development in a tiny community. The
1230
development would involve 52 lorry movements a day on a B road, causing dust, dirt and the total destruction of the environment.
The next site for opencast development is called the Shilo north site, which affects the villages and small towns of Kimberley, Eastwood and Awsworth. The site is at the bottom of the valley. I agree with the comments in the Nottingham Evening Post which stated:
"I applaud the campaign by the Shilo North Action Group to preserve their locality. A vast gaping hole torn in the earth, destroying the essence of the countryside, is too great a price to pay for coal we don't urgently need. I can imagine the outcry should Stratford or Constable country be threatened in this way."
The third site due for development is known as Robinettes. It will affect the villages of Cossoll and Awsworth. That area is close to Nottingham, but is green land offering great recreational opportunities. There are many farms in the area, and it has not been touched by the industrial revolution, but it is now being sized and drilled in another proposal to rip up the land and terrify the local community through a long process of destruction and potential dereliction.
All the local communities are firmly opposed to those environmental hazards. Broxtowe district council, Nottingham county council, the protest groups and I have joined together as we grind our way through the due processes of planning and public inquiries.
I want to give my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House a flavour of what this means to so many people who cannot sell their houses. I am not talking about the great and the good; I am talking about people in normal small terraced houses who face the long prospect of the real difficulties in their personal lives.
We all accept that, in a developing society, we cannot stand still. However, before we can accept the degree of environmental dereliction that I have described, we must be sure that the need for it is critical. No one is sure that the need for opencast coal is that critical. A balance is essential. There is a price which we must be very careful not to pay in terms of people's environmental privilege, for which no compensation can be paid.
I will end with a quotation from the Nottingham Evening Post "Comment" written by Suzanne Kirk:
"We are rapidly approaching a crisis point. It seems more change has taken place over the last 20 to 30 years than during the rest of history.
The undistinguished Erewash Valley, although not mentioned in any tourist guides, is very special to the people of West Nottinghamshire.
The abundant wildlife, tranquil foot paths and panoramic views make it a place to escape to—but not one for much longer if British Coal's plans to outcrop the valley succeed."
6.59 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: During business questions last week I referred to a Chinese dissident, Xu Hai Ning, who returned to China about 10 days ago. I received a brief answer from the Home Office, but I have had no opportunity further to pursue the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has also referred to this issue. This subject is apposite, as the former Foreign Secretary will reply to the debate.
I am a frequent and, on occasions, vehement critic of the way in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office deal with numerous immigration cases in my constituency, but I have nothing but praise for the Home Office staff who have dealt with this case. I make

1231
no criticism about that person's return to China. When we phoned the Home Office we got very good support from the staff. Mr. Xu was interviewed at the airport on his way back to China. He was seen on his own, and attempts were made to allow him to ask for protection if he had any objection to going back. I mention this case because it raises one or two matters in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can be of assistance.
When I interviewed him in the House of Commons a fortnight ago, Mr. Xu was distraught and unsure of his status here. He had been granted leave to stay in Britain for 12 months. In the circumstances, that decision was reasonable. He was concerned about having no travel documents, about what would happen at the end of the 12 months, and about his ability to take up employment, become a student, and so on during his stay. Dissidents who come to this country are often highly emotional and could he helped by proper counselling.
I am somewhat disturbed about advertisements that were placed in a Chinese business newspaper published in Soho and about accusations that Chinese diplomatic staff in this country have been phoning people to find the addresses of safe houses, saying that they have messages from their family—in other words, putting pressure on them. I realise that it is difficult to deal with advertisements, phone calls and, possibly following people and searching out safe houses, but people need the maximum possible protection.
It is 148 years since Britain obtained part of the colony of Hong Kong through two treaties and a leasing deal that was made in 1886. Those treaties were unfairly imposed on China because China was dominated by Britain and other imperial powers at the time. Since then, the vast majority of Chinese people in Hong Kong have had no say in the running of the country, the distribution of its wealth or their own future. Much has been made of the so-called Hong Kong economic miracle. It is no miracle. Hong Kong is one of a small number of countries—for example, Singapore, Taiwan and, formerly, South Korea—that enjoy a privileged position in free trade. It has had a compliant, cheap labour force and the advantage of massive international capital investment, in particular in Hong Kong by America, Japan and Britain. Investors have had a free hand to exploit a tremendously hard-working and compliant population who, in turn, have been denied any real democratic or trade union rights.
It is true that the majority of people in Hong Kong enjoy a far higher standard of living than those in the rest of China. That is hardly surprising considering their trade advantages, the fact that China was ruled for centuries by emperors and warlords, was pillaged by a variety of imperialist powers, was devastated during the Japanese invasion and the civil war of 1945–49, and that the majority of the population were uneducated, extremely poor peasants. Hong Kong falls far short of being a so-called capitalist paradise.
Several hon. Members have lived in Hong Kong. Many others have visited it with parliamentary delegations. Others like myself have visited the colony during their previous employment. However, few hon. Members have had an opportunity to see the sweated labour conditions that exist in many factories and workplaces in Hong Kong. They see an entirely different side of Hong Kong—the good houses in Repulse bay and the better areas of Hong Kong. They see the private clubs that are enjoyed by
1232
British and European people and by some of the richer Chinese. They see the fabulous hotels, nightclubs and bars. Very few have spent a weekend with an ordinary Chinese family and travelled in a plywood-sided lift to the 15th floor of a 20-floor block, which is one of 20 or 30 similar skyscrapers in one housing development.
Few people have taken any interest in seeing the thousands of people who pour from the workplaces at lunchtime to eat their lunches in the shanty canteens that line the roads. Few appreciate the pollution and overcrowding in the streets or see the conditions of the boat people—not just Vietnamese boat people, but Chinese boat people—who eke out their lives in the typhoon basins of Hong Kong. That is the reality of life for most Chinese people in Hong Kong.
I accompanied an injured colleague to hospital at 3 o'clock one morning in Hong Kong. I will not describe what it was like going into the hospital and the interviews that one had to have with the police. However, we ended up in the ward. I had never seen anything like it in my life. It was a typical rectangular hospital ward. The four sides of the ward were lined with beds touching each other, and, in front of the beds, were camp beds, also touching each other. Seated in hospital chairs were people with drips in their arms and noses. All the lights were on at 5 o'clock in the morning. Two arguments were taking place. There may be private hospitals for the rich in Hong Kong, but that is the standard of treatment for many ordinary people.
The debate on the return of Hong Kong to China was a golden opportunity for the majority of Chinese people to have the right to a say for the first time in how the colony is run, how its wealth is distributed, and what its future should be. If universal sufferage had been granted to everybody over the age of 18, Chinese people could really say what their wishes are. Hon. Members have debated Chinese people's right of abode, but, to a large extent, it is a side issue. An old friend of mine who has carried on business in Hong Kong for 15 years has recently returned. He wrote:
"Numerous people I have spoken to over the last few days, from taxi drivers to industrialists, have used almost the same words to me: 'They are shooting my people! Why did they have to do such a terrible thing?' I must say that I think there is now a considerable risk of civil unrest in Hong Kong, depending on events in China, British reaction to those events, and the short-term political evolution of the very broadly-based movement within Hong Kong."
My friend went on to talk about the right to abode. The right to abode has been wrongly tackled in the House. The 3·5 million people in the Irish Republic and 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland have the right of abode, given the possibility of an Armageddon or a Beirut-type situation developing in Northern Ireland. Also, 270 million people in the Common Market have the right, of abode in this country. People in Hong Kong had that right of abode up to 1962. My view is that the granting of the right of abode to Hong Kong citizens would diffuse the situation and would concentrate the mind not on that issue, but on the much more important issues which concern relationships with China and the democratic rights in Hong Kong.
The Chinese claim that theirs is a Socialist Government, a Socialist society and that they are Communists. However, as a lifelong Socialist and an unashamed Marxist, I believe that a river of blood separates Stalinism from real Socialism. The events in

1233
China, the appalling events in Soviet labour camps, the massacre during the Hungarian revolution and the events in Czechoslovakia have nothing to do with my ideas of Socialism.
I can recall walking off a mountainside in Hong Kong with a Chinese friend, past a filthy, horrible, degrading and disgusting squatter camp, and seeing coming out of that camp two small children, aged about five years and two years. They were dressed in immaculate pyjamas. They were doing their ablutions brushing their teeth and washing themselves at a standpipe that the local authority had erected at the side of that squatters camp. That was a touching scene. However, what it brought home to me was not how nice and beautiful those little children were, but the resolve of their parents, living under that filth and horror, to keep those children decent and to strive to find a better way of life. That is the real side of humanity, which the Chinese rulers will realise when the Chinese people rise again, as they will, and end for ever the totalitarian system there, as I hope one day we will end the inequalities that exist in capitalist society throughout the world.
7.11 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I begin by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be seduced by the legendary charm and the equally legendary scant respect for the facts of that hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Ogmore knows as well as I do that it was open to the Labour party to choose to debate earlier this year the subject of the National Health Service in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee, but it did not choose to do so. It was equally open to the Labour party to debate that matter on one or part of one of its many Opposition supply days in the House, but it did not do so. It had those opportunities, but it did not take them. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, cannot complain about the lack of opportunity for a debate on the National Health Service in Wales during this current session. Indeed, so enthusiastic was the Welsh Labour party for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee that at this stage of the Session we have had one fewer debate than usual.
I assure the hon. Member for Ogmore that, far from being reluctant to debate the subject of the National Health Service in Wales, Conservative Members are exceedingly keen to do so. How can we be otherwise, when there has been in real terms a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales in the past 10 years? If the record of the Government on spending on the National Health Service in England and Wales has been good, in the Principality it has been remarkable.
I wish to raise an issue that I have already raised twice today in questions both to my right hon. and learned Friend during business questions and to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, during his statement on food safety—the serious salmonella poisoning outbreak in my constituency in north Wales and in other parts of the north-west. The severity of the situation can be measured by the fact that there are 53 suspected cases of salmonella poisoning in Clwyd; 29 of those have been confirmed bacteriologically, 13 people have been admitted to hospital and, tragically, one person has died.
1234
I pay fulsome tribute to Delyn borough council and Clwyd health authority for the thorough way in which they have investigated the outbreak so that within a short period they were able to track down the source. The suspected food was withdrawn from sale, the production of cooked meat by the company implicated in the outbreak was halted, and distribution of the food was suspended. A list of outlets has also been supplied to all environmental health departments and visits are being undertaken as quickly as possible to those outlets. The health authority has also, of course, given advice to the public about ready-cooked and prepared meats.
I have no doubt that Delyn borough council, as the public health authority, has taken all the appropriate steps, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available, to contain the outbreak. However, I want to draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, which I know he will in turn bring to the attention of his colleagues, the problem the council faces. I raised this problem this afternoon with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The council, as public health authority, finds itself in a dilemma in deciding whether to name the company suspected of being implicated in the outbreak, because it has at present only circumstantial evidence and must wait several days for that evidence to be backed up and confirmed by medical and scientific analyses. As soon as the investigation was initiated into the outbreak, faecal and food samples and swabs were taken from potential suspects and sent to the public health laboratory for analysis.
I welcomed the Welsh Office's decision today to issue a food hazard notice naming the company which is believed to be involved, in the interests of consumer safety, and also to list the various outlets for prepared and cooked meat originating from that company. In the event of an outbreak of this kind, it is important that we not only have full and effective co-operation between the relevant health and local authorities, but that there is also a clear chain of responsibility. I believe that ultimately the onus must be on the health authority to decide whether or not to name a company which it has good reason to believe is implicated—perhaps 60 or 75 per cent. certain—even though it has not received medical and scientific back-up. When there is such an outbreak, time is of the essence. It is very important that the name of the company is disclosed to the public so that those shops which sell food originating from the company can withdraw that food from sale and those who have bought suspected food can see their doctors as soon as possible.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will bring that matter to the attention of the Cabinet sub-committee on food safety which, because of its importance, is chaired by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. When we come to legislate on these matters in the autumn, it is important that we cover the "chain of command" in such an outbreak, the relationship between the Government, the health authorities and the local councils as public health authorities.
I understand from those whom I have spoken to in the past few days that the first suspected case was notified to Delyn borough council's environmental health department on Tuesday 20 July. Clwyd health authority informed me that the first it knew of the outbreak was when the first patient was hospitalised on Saturday 22 July. I do not criticise anyone at this juncture. The important thing is to help all those who are dealing with

1235
this difficult and serious situation and who are doing their utmost to contain it and get it under control. But it is important for the Welsh Office to ensure that all available information is provided to the Clwyd health authority and to the neighbouring health authorities as soon as possible. That is a must if the community physicians are to be able to do their job, to contact potential suspects and take samples from them.
Earlier, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider issuing guidelines to butchers and delicatessens on cooked and raw meat. As the Institution of Environmental Health Officers said in the press today, it is important that raw and cooked meats are not allowed to stand near each other and that the same machinery is not used to slice them.
When we had the serious salmonella outbreak connected with eggs at the end of last year, the Ministry was not slow to issue the necessary guidelines. The chief medical officer of health issued advice to consumers on salmonella in eggs and poultry. Codes of practice were issued to producers and National Health Service hospitals were rightly briefed on the cooking of foods involving eggs. The Ministry must now seriously consider issuing guidance to butchers, delicatessens and consumers.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertook quite a devastating survey of domestic kitchen hygiene. It showed that consumers have an important part to play in reducing the risk of food poisoning. It revealed that consumers do not normally read the storage instructions on chilled or frozen pre-packed foods; that 94 per cent. of respondents never checked the temperature of their refrigerator; that 66 per cent. never adjusted its temperature control; and that only 18 per cent. appreciated the hazard of keeping food at room temperature for prolonged periods.
It is equally important to embark on a renewed campaign of public awareness—following the one earlier this year. This is especially important given the extraordinary hot weather that we are currently experiencing—so that people are made aware of the importance of separating cooked and raw meats in their fridges and of ensuring that their refrigerators are at the necessary low temperature.
The Government have acted promptly, swiftly and efficiently on food safety, but it must worry all hon. Members that the number of cases of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 increased from seven to 109 between 1964 and 1974 and increased sharply from 1,362 in 1984 to 12,522 in 1988. Those figures originate from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I warmly welcome the White Paper and look forward to an early debate and early legislation on these matters in the new Session. I hope, in the meantime, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will bring the points that I have made to the attention of not only the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but the Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for agriculture and food in the Principality. I would also ask that the guidance to butchers and delicatessens I mentioned is issue as soon as possible.
I hope that the Cabinet sub-committee on food safety will give urgent attention to ensuring that in the event of an outbreak there is in future a clear chain of responsibility and command; that all the authorities involved co-operate
1236
fully and effectively; and that there is no delay in naming a company that is clearly implicated, on sufficient circumstantial evidence, in a serious outbreak.
7.23 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I should like to raise a couple of issues before the House adjourns. The Government have not taken adequate steps to deal with environmental issues in the environmental Bill proposed for the autumn, or to deal with water quality control and the proposals for the Nature Conservancy Council.
Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Secretary of State for the Environment will respond to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to publish the proposals that will be included in the environmental Bill before the autumn so that hon. Members can try to achieve consensus on them? Hon. Members who are genuinely concerned about improving the environment want to achieve consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has made a generous offer, but consensus will not be achieved unless hon. Members are aware of the Bill's provisions and what is the Government's line of thinking.
I am concerned about how the Nature Conservancy Council is being run. The proposals for its restructuring have not been thought out, and the NCC was not consulted on them. The first that it heard about them was when it was announced in the press that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment intended to merge it with the Countryside Commission and break up its functions.
I must express my concern at how the NCC was directed by the previous Secretary of State, who appeared to be directly involved in altering its role and direction, especially on field and blood sports. He appointed a number of new members to the NCC in March, among whom were two landowning earls—one maintained a large grouse moor and the other was a master of foxhounds. Although I am sure that they are worthy individuals, they do not seem compatible with our premier organisation for nature conservation. One of the NCC's staff said:
"I cannot imagine what some of these people, however worthy they arc, are going to do for nature conservation, as opposed to the interests of landowners and grouse shooters."
Many people are concerned about the NCC being manipulated by people who are not sympathetic to the environment or to the nature conservation ideals that many share. An example was when the previous Secretary of State said that the NCC should take into account what he termed "traditional country sports" before it gave grants for the purchase of land.
The NCC signed an agreement with various shooting organisations on what it termed "areas of common interest", under which a grant was given to Kent wildfowlers to purchase an area to shoot wildfowl. I accept that wildfowling is a legitimate interest and pastime, but I am not sure that it is the role of the NCC to give public funds to wildfowling organisations for them to pursue their interests.
That should be contrasted with the way in which other organisations have been treated when applying for grants. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds applied for a 50 per cent. grant to extend its nature reserve in Nene washes, Cambridgeshire. The NCC told the RSPB that it

1237
would not be given a grant unless it allowed shooting on its nature reserve. Shooting and a nature reserve are incompatible, so the society proceeded without a grant.
The NCC negotiated with landowners on the Solway firth to buy their shooting rights for £750,000. The EEC, because of the international importance of the Solway firth for wintering wildfowl, was prepared to pay 50 per cent. of that sum. I understand that the previous Secretary of State spent some time shooting in that area and that when he heard about this deal he intervened and instructed the NCC to scrap it. The 50 per cent. grant, which was not an inconsiderable amount, was lost to that major conservation area.
People who get their pleasure from chasing innocent animals to death or torturing them have no place in such organisations. They would be better off seeking psychiatric or medical help than being involved in conservation bodies as a way of pursuing their pastimes. The NCC should not be involved in that role.
I do not object, and most reasonable people would not object, to the NCC being broken up on a regional basis, with one council for Scotland and one for Wales. There is nothing wrong with that, but its national structure must be safeguarded. The NCC has funded long-term research projects, such as the common bird census, constant effort sites and the national ringing programme. The main agency is the British Trust for Ornithology which is negotiating a new five-year contract with the NCC. The work must be funded, controlled and monitored nationally.
Furthermore, the NCC must have real influence and control over its work. I am worried that attempts are being made to dilute it. I have already explained the effect of the previous Secretary of State's appointments. In Scotland, the NCC has come into conflict with local landowners and regional councils on several issues. In the flow country, the NCC has rightly held out against extensive planting of trees in an area of international importance which has never in its history been planted with conifers. The planting of conifers is alien to the habitat and landscape.
There is conflict about the development of the Cairngorms and the extension of the ski lift and skiing facilities into Lurchers gully. The regional council has tried to change its structure plan to allow that to happen even though that proposal was defeated in a public inquiry a few years ago. There is much conflict about grants for planting trees in Scotland where 90 per cent. of new planting is conifers.
If the NCC is broken up, will the Scottish NCC be dominated by Scottish landowners who are involved in tree-planting, grouse moors and shooting? What confidence can we have that the NCC in the hands of such people will fulfil its role? The position is serious when one considers that some parts of Scotland should have a certain breed of bird of prey—the hen harrier—but do not. Where they have tried to nest and establish themselves, local gamekeepers have illegally put down poisoned baits, or, in a recent case, shot the sitting bird on the nest and stabbed the young into the ground. Will such people be appointed to the NCC? Can we have confidence in them to protect our wildlife?
Wildlife is not just there for aesthetic purposes. It is a biological indicator. What happens to wildlife is a sign of
1238
what is happening to the health of our environment, as we saw in the 1960s with the effect of DDT on animal species in the food chain.
In my area there is great anxiety about the levels of pollution in the River Humber. The flora and fauna are particularly impoverished in the upper reaches. That is because of excessive pollution which the Government have made little attempt to control The position will be made worse by the proposals in the Water Bill, as sewerage works are given permission to carry on polluting the river at levels far higher than the EEC agreed maximums. Other industrial outflows will also exceed the maximums, yet sufficient action is not being taken to tackle the problem.
A document has been leaked to me. Unfortunately the identification marks have all been removed, so that I cannot tell where it came from. It is a scientific survey of the Humber. It draws attention to some of the main problems, which must be tackled as a matter of priority. It identifies that at certain times of river flow and high temperatures there is a complete lack of oxygen in the vicinity of the Trent falls. The document states that oxygen levels in the mid and lower Humber are of concern in summer resulting from a significant input of organic matter, sewage. That means that at certain periods of the year or indeed of the month, some stretches of the Humber are biologically dead. Life cannot exist there. It is a barrier to the migration of fish upriver. Pollution has reached such levels that there is no oxygen.
The document continues:
"Compared with other estuaries the fauna … is extremely limited in terms of the number of species found.
The Ouse system was originally a prolific salmon fishery, fish being taken regularly … along a considerable length of the system. Whilst very occasionally fish get through the estuary, commercial fishing is non-existent. The decline is attributable in the main to lack of oxygen.
There is very little information of a reliable nature on the concentrations of heavy metals in the estuary. There is no systematically collected data available as to the concentrations of alien, man-made organic contaminants in the estuary. No baseline data on which to base predictions of true nature and impact of man's activities on the estuary."
Recently Greenpeace took samples in the Humber which showed alarmingly high levels of heavy metal contaminants from various sources. The document states:
"Measurements of Arsenic have shown that the concentration of this element is significantly increased in the neighbourhood of Read's island emanating from Cappa Pass on the North Bank of the Humber.
There are 216 potentially polluting discharges to the tidal waters of the Humber, 67 to the Ouse system, 70 to the Trent and 79 to Hull and Humber.
Acid iron waste discharged from two titanium dioxide plants (Tioxide UK Ltd. and the SCM Corporation) affects an area of the Humber in excess of 17 km. Every other nation in Europe has taken steps to reduce emissions from this internationally recognised polluting industry."
It is true that we have recently debated EEC directives about controlling emissions from titanium dioxide, but little progress appears to have been made and the steps that have been taken have been far too late.
The document mentions that a disease called epidermal papilloma in dab is as high in the Dogger bank area just off Humberside as it is in the German bight. The document suggests that in November 1984, upon completion of a report on this matter, the Government were so alarmed that they immediately drew up plans to terminate the dumping of sewage and industrial waste. As far as I know,

1239
that has never been carried out. Industrial waste and sewage sludge are still being dumped in the North sea off the Humber, with the results that we have seen.
The Government have not tackled the problem of the environment or the issue of the NCC. To break it up would be a retrograde step. It needs the reassurance that I have outlined. Many organisations are watching the Government carefully on these issues and they want some action.
7.38 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I am not sure what a Leader of the House does during the summer recess. I suspect that he puts his feet up. I am sure that a deputy Prime Minister does no such thing, but races round keeping his colleagues in order. That is what I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to do with two sets of his colleagues.
The first are his colleagues in the arts, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury on the matter dealt with by early-day motion 1179 on the English National Opera and the English National Ballet, formerly the London Festival Ballet. If we do not find a solution to their funding problem within the next month we shall have serious trouble keeping those two excellent national institutions in being. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take that on board and ensure that we find a solution during the recess.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also pursue his colleagues in the Department of Transport. An advantage of the type of life and hours that we in the House have is that we usually go home long after the traffic jams have ended. Last night, however, even after 11 o'clock, the traffic jams were by no means at an end in London, and the A3 was blocked solid.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, perhaps no longer being burdened with international travel, will experience some of the domestic forms of travel—or perhaps I should say, the inability to travel—that Londoners have faced for many years. If he would care to visit south London, I will take him on a slow guided tour round the traffic jams and blocked bus lanes and then, if he has an hour or two to spare, I will accompany him down to a couple of stations on the Northern line, and then to an area where neither the Northern line nor the District line or any other Underground line runs. That might lead us to try some of the railway stations in my part of the world. Although trains run there, they do so with inadequate numbers of coaches, so that when they pull in at stations the passengers fall out rather than try to get in.
Having experienced some of the delights of travelling around south London and having sat in traffic jams, my right hon. and learned Friend will doubtless return to his colleagues at the Department of Transport and ask, "What are we to do about this problem?" The officials in that Department will tell him, "We are thinking of putting some more traffic into the area." That represents the real problem at which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will look. The Government, having rightly listened to people such as I who call attention to transport problems in London, invited consultants to come up with some analyses of the problems and then to put forward some solutions.
The solutions that are being suggested would drive not coaches and horses through London—if only that were the
1240
case—but major roads through London, knocking clown houses on the way, carving through common land and introducing yet more traffic into London. As those of us who understand a little of traffic engineering and mathematics and a lot about the burdens and desires of our constituents know, more roads result in more traffic. Even worse, bigger roads result in bigger volumes of traffic. Faster roads do not produce faster traffic but result in moving traffic faster into traffic jams. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will encourage his colleagues in the Department of Transport to drop those schemes.
The first scheme that might be dropped is a project known as weir, which should have a "d" at the end. The words which form the acronym weir include the word "improvement." It is known as the western environmental improvement route. It is difficult to appreciate what the project would achieve, for the road would be a great hazard to the people of Hammersmith, depositing traffic at a great rate of knots—about 11,000 additional vehicles a day—on to the river embankment, where it would have nowhere to go except on to the overcrowded roads of Wandsworth. We are told that it would produce an increase of 27 per cent. in traffic volume and that it would not be a motorway but only a small road that would use a railway line that is no longer needed.
We are told not to worry about what is proposed. We are bound to worry because it is destined to bring 85,000 vehicles a day along that stretch of road to the river. That number of vehicles is as much as the elevated section of the M4 can carry, and it is probably the heaviest used two-lane motorway in Britain. If it is not a motorway, I am not sure what it is. It has all the appearance of a motorway. There are no cyclists or pedestrians allowed on it and there are no junctions of the non-motorway type. It brings all the traffic to my part of the world. I hope that that road scheme will be the first to be thrown out, and thereafter the other schemes and option that have been put to the Department of Transport should also be thrown out.
Our road problems are due to the history of London, which was designed largely for the narrow gauge cart and its horse. The problems are increasing because of London's increased prosperity. There are other ways of achieving the solutions we need, and I hope that careful consideration will be given to the four-borough alternative that has been put forward by the boroughs of Richmond, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Lambeth. That four-borough, three-party scheme looks to public transport as a solution to London's traffic problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) along with myself and others have brought forward the scheme of red routing, a plan that would enormously help the flow of traffic in London and would stop thoughtless and selfish parking or waiting on roads. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, referred earlier to the Serjeant at Arms and to this place having wig, pen and sword. I would use all three of those on motorists who park thoughtlessly on some through routes into London.
Aside from that and some minor improvements. such as widening or straightening roads, it is clear that providing more and bigger roads is not the answer. We must deter people from using roads to come into London, including stopping firms providing car parking spaces. The City of London follows that course to a certain extent and I should like to see the rest of London doing the same. Much would be achieved quickly by improving public transport.

1241
If we had better rail and Underground services, looked carefully at the central London rail study and threw out the road options, we would achieve a great deal.
If we did that, my right hon. and learned Friend would have earned his rest in the second half of the summer recess and many Londoners would have rest granted to them as a result of the quick and merciful killing off of the road options that are being put to the Department of Transport.
7.46 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, am concerned with the environmental conditions in which the people of London live. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the assessment studies now under consideration are far from what Londoners want or need. They require a rapid, considerable improvement in public transport and a reduction in the number of cars coming into central London.
We live in a dirty, polluted and dangerous city and I get more and more angry as I cycle round London having my lungs blasted full of exhaust from cars. My constituents suffer because of the vast number of commuter cars that come through my area. They are only too well aware of the major road building proposals, and earlier this week I presented 24 petitions signed by 3,000 people who live in various parts of my constituency and who oppose the road assessment studies, and there will be plenty more from where those petitions came.
My constituents are not prepared to have their homes and communities torn apart to make way for motorways which will bring even more traffic through the inner London constituencies to clog up the rest of London, as has happened this week. We must have a different approach to transport in London from the schemes that are on offer.
The other main issue that I wish to raise is poverty in London. A sense of horrible complacency descends over the House at this time of year as hon. Members seem to have a mad desire to get away to Bermuda or the Caribbean or wherever else people spend their summer holidays, leaving behind all the problems.
Despite all the press publicity that has been given this week to the reshuffling in the Government, nothing has changed for many people in London. When, later tonight, hon. Members who stayed for the Consolidated Fund debates leave to go home, the same people will be sleeping in cardboard boxes outside the law courts and on the pavements outside Charing Cross and Waterloo stations as were sleeping in those places last night. If one went out now to the theatreland area of London, one would find the same people begging around the theatre queues. People are walking round London begging for food and sustenance. The fact that that is happening in one of the world's major capital cities, in one of the richest countries and in what we are told is one of the most successful economies in western Europe is not just a standing disgrace: it is a shame on everyone. People should not be reduced to sleeping on pavements and to begging, as is happening in this capital city.
When people come to my advice surgery, as they no doubt will tomorrow evening, and to the surgeries of my hon. Friends who represent inner-London constituencies, we will hear about the horror facing people who live in
1242
grossly overcrowded flats and the horror of young people who know that they have no chance of getting their own place in which to live. They must stay in the already overcrowded flats of their parents simply because local authorities have lost a net figure of 31,000 council properties in the past 10 years. Very few council properties are being built and many more are being sold off. There is no way in which those young people can get a place of their own because if one wants to buy anywhere in central London on a mortgage one needs an income of about £20,000 a year—unless one has considerable savings.
We are dealing with a crisis of immeasurable proportions that affects the lives not just of people already on the housing lists but of their children who suffer in school because they live in overcrowded accommodation. Earlier this week I spent several hours talking to primary school teachers in my constituency. Not only are schools increasingly short of teachers; they are increasingly becoming centres for the social problems caused by a combination of poverty and bad housing. Children are continually ill, and whenever one child gets an illness, it is immediately passed on to the rest of the family because of the overcrowded living conditions. Increasingly, children are under-achieving at school because they are unable to do any kind of homework at home. Often they cannot get enough sleep because they all sleep in the same room and somebody may want to have the radio or television on, or simply because of the comings or goings of the people in the room. It is an absolute disgrace that that is happening in the richest part of a rich country.
As my hon. Friends and I are well aware, those problems are compounded by the social security legislation that has been enacted in the past few years. I served on the previous three Standing Committees considering social security legislation. None of those pieces of legislation has achieved any improvement in people's living standards. The legislation has simply increased arbitrary control by officials of the Department of Social Security, who often do not want that control, over poor people who are suffering increased poverty, increased homelessness and increased misery in our inner-urban areas.
The people who have come to London and who have been reduced to begging on our streets should be able to look to a social security system that will not force them into that position. Nobody enjoys lowering himself to the level of begging on our streets and sleeping in cardboard boxes. It might be a bit of a laugh to sleep out for a couple of nights in the summer, but in six months' time, on cold winter evenings, sleeping in a cardboard box outside the law courts or within sight of the Savoy hotel is no joke. It shames us all.
In relation to a social security problem in my community, I quote from a copy of a letter sent to the chair of the social security advisory committee by the leader of Islington council, Margaret Hodge, because it emphasises my point:
"Dear Peter Barclay,
I enclose a report produced by this Council's welfare rights team which describes the inadequate, demeaning and counter-productive nature of the Social Fund as experienced by claimants and advice staff in this borough. The Council agreed to give local DSS offices the opportunity to comment on the report and to carry out any improvements that might be feasible. However, in the three months since the report was produced, there has been a substantial deterioration in the scheme. I take no comfort from the fact that this was forecast in the body of the report.

1243
What has happened is that expenditure on community care grants has hit 100 per cent. of the very limited local budget. In Islington, this budget was set at only one-fifth of single payments expenditure in the year prior to April 1988. In the case of Finsbury Park DSS, their expenditure hit 131 per cent. of the monthly budget target in May, supposedly a 'light' month, with the result that they will have to make up this overspend by cutting back on their expenditure this year. They, and other Islington offices, have developed more `stringent' local guidelines to achieve this. Obviously, these `stringent' guidelines will be even more Draconian than the Secretary of State's Directions which still provide the legal framework for the scheme.
Reports are coming in from all over the borough that people who qualify under the Directions for a Community Care Grant are being offered loans. This is totally unacceptable."
I heartily agree with and endorse the contents of that letter. I have placed a copy of the Islington report on the operation of the social fund in the Library and have sent another copy to the Department of Social Security. We warned the Department about what was happening and said that cash-limiting the social fund locally was not only disastrous, but meant that a proportion of what was available to poor people two or three years ago was already overspent. Local DSS staff have been placed in the appalling position of having to say to deserving people, "You cannot have the grants that you could have had a year ago and which we believe you should have under the guidelines because the money is simply not there."
A letter from the manager of the Finsbury Park DSS office to his staff about social fund priorities and community care grants states:
"I have detailed below the Community Care Grant expenditure for the period 1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989 which shows that, despite arrangements to restrict awards to essential items of furniture and household equipment and thereby remain on profile, expenditure has still exceeded the budget profile."
The manager then gives the figures, and says:
"As you can see, payments for furniture and household equipment on their own, have exceeded the budget for the period in question. In order to ensure that future expenditure can be contained within profile, I have had to introduce the following measures from 3rd July 1989:—

(1) All claims for items of low to medium priority—clothing, redecoration, leisure items, Hire Purchase and other debts are unlikely to be met in view of their priority status and;

(2) Community Care Grant awards for furniture and household equipment will be limited to the amounts in Annex 4 of Social Fund Manual i.e. £500.00 for a single person, £750·00 for a couple with £220·00 additions per child. Additionally, it may be necessary to refuse claims for high priority items if expenditure continues to outstrip budget profile.

So far as budgetary loans are concerned, expenditure remains within profile".
Loans in certain categories are available, but they are loans to people who are already poor. For those who are eligible and deserving of a community care grant, the money will simply not be available.
I hope that the Leader of the House will undertake to refer the serious and legitimate concerns that I have voiced to the Department of Social Security. I am horrified that throughout August, September and for most of October, there will be no opportunity for me to raise these matters in the House and that the people in my area will have to go without what should be theirs by right. The House must resolve the problem of the serious urban poverty in our capital city.
7.57 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: Before I follow the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick I and for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on a brief trip to the far east, I remind the House that exactly one week ago the water to a substantial part of my constituency was cut off. That caused distress and discomfort to many of my constituents and put several at real risk.
Yesterday I received a letter from one constituent which read:
"I am writing to you on my mother's behalf. She is 95 years old, blind and housebound. Her supply of water was turned off on Friday without any warning or without any provision being made for her to obtain water. The Thames Water Authority over their `answerphone' could only say there was a tap somewhere locally—no address given."
Although Thames Water had known for 48 hours before the taps had to be switched off that a crisis was imminent, during that time no warning was given to the people of south London and no appeals to save water were made to offset the drastic step that was taken. I believe that there should be an inquiry into why the water was cut off without warning, in view of the public health risk involved. In the weeks ahead, a firm statement should be made about the amount of compensation that will be paid to those people who were put at risk.
My primary concern this evening is the plight of the Vietnamese boat people. I often corresponded with my right hon. and learned Friend on this subject when he was at the Foreign Office. All hon. Members know that tens of thousands of boat people from Vietnam have crowded into Hong Kong in recent weeks. They live in dreadful conditions and, if authoritative newspaper reports are to be believed, men, women and children will be forcibly shipped back to Vietnam before the House reassembles in the autumn. The argument used by the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign Office and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in favour of such a scheme is that these people are not proper refugees, but economic migrants. It is rarely easy to draw a sensible line between economic oppression and political oppression. In Poland, the founders of Solidarity began by striking against dreadful economic conditions, but the economic strike soon became a political protest. In the Soviet Union in recent weeks, coal miners have been striking against economic failure, but the strikes also seem to have political overtones.
If a family risk their lives by fleeing from Vietnam in a leaking, overcrowded boat—scores of boat people have been drowned when trying to escape this year—will the authorities in Vietnam consider that an economic and not a political gesture if the family is forced to return? We cannot be sure.
We know that some of the officials of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong are unhappy about the screening procedures for new arrivals from Vietnam. There is also the argument that it is all right to send them back because Vietnam has changed. Thanks to the Foreign Office, I had an opportunity recently to meet the Foreign Minister of Vietnam—a hardened Communist with some 15 years' experience in the upper echelons of one of the most rigidly orthodox Communist countries in the world—who has been converted to free enterprise. When I talked to him, he sounded as though he was standing for chairmanship of the Back-Bench Conservative finance committee. He was

1245
sure that political freedom would follow economic freedom. He certainly sounded more pro-capitalist than many of the South Vietnamese Ministers to whom I talked in Saigon in 1965 and in 1973.
Vietnam is still a closed society, and I do not believe that it is safe to send families back until Vietnam as a whole is open to diplomats, journalists, relief workers and tourists.
Conditions in the boat people's camps in Hong Kong are exceptionally bad. About eight weeks ago I visited the Shamshuipo camp in Hong Kong, where about 4,500 people live in conditions so bad that if we kept dogs in similar conditions in this country, the RSPCA would lead an outcry. Since then, conditions in many camps have deteriorated quite sharply. We know that the Hong Kong Government are unwilling to make any more money available.
Ultimately, we have responsibility for the conditions in those camps. I know that, in the first six months of this year, the British taxpayer provided £12 million to help with the problems caused by the influx of another 35,000 boat people, but it will take at least another £20 million before the end of this year to maintain standards that were barely tolerable before the new flood of boat people arrived.
I hope that the new Minister for Overseas Development will make it plain that the money will be available. If we pay the piper, we should also call the tune. In this country, we have many people who are expert in dealing with displaced persons and refugees. We should immediately send a high-level delegation of experts to Hong Kong to inspect the camps and if they recommend it, the British Government should take over direct responsibility for running some or all of the camps for new arrivals.
Urgent action is needed. I hope that the new Foreign Secretary will treat this as a matter of urgency.
8.6 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: There have been many interesting speeches in this Adjournment debate. I do not think that any hon. Member has advocated that we do not break for the summer recess, and that is advantageous, as it steers us clear of hypocrisy. This debate gives us an opportunity to raise issues which are of concern to individual hon. Members.
The most common theme tonight has been the environment. I shall leave it to the Leader of the House to respond to each individual speech, and I am sure that he will deploy the considerable skills that he acquired over many years in the courts to summarise the cases that have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned the environment, particularly the North sea. During this Session of Parliament, there has been a considerable increase in public concern about the environment. I think that that concern is likely to grow during the recess, as there seems to be evidence that people's concern for the environment grows when they are on holiday, and they go to places that they are not familiar with.
Many people visit the seaside on their holidays or cross the sea in boats or aircraft. Most people who fly across the North sea, or the Irish sea, cannot fail to be impressed by
1246
how small they are. Their small size makes them vulnerable. The problems of the North sea and the Irish sea are legion, and they are not being dealt with as well or as quickly as they should be.
One sad example is the death of the majority of the seal population around the United Kingdom. That shows how little we know about the ecology of our seas. Although scientists warned that there was some danger to the seal population, none predicted such a disaster. We must be increasingly cautious when we make assumptions about the environment. Perhaps "precautious" would be a better word to describe what our attitude to the sea should be.
Owing to the current fears of holiday disruption abroad, the United Kingdom's seaside resorts are experiencing something of a revival, and it would be preferable if people were to encounter rather less sewage on the beaches. The response of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—to sewage dispersal into the sea was, I, understand, to favour longer discharge pipes; those, however, provide no solution in our small and landlocked seas. They are really horizontal marine equivalents of the tall chimneys that have been exporting acid rain for some years. It appears that the Government never learn.
A development which, over the past few years, has revealed the Government's attitude to the marine environment is the massive and continuing failure of sea-bird breeding in the Shetlands, caused by the overfishing of sand eels, which, in theory, is regulated by the Government. The massive sea-bird colonies of Northern Britain are a unique biological feature of major international significance. In that area—I take just one example—Arctic terns have failed to breed because the chicks starved to death in 1984, 1985, and 1986. On some major sites, no chicks at all were reared in 1987 and 1988, and this year's breeding has also failed. Other species, such as the puffin, have also suffered massive breeding failure.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland—DAFS for the sake of brevity—has repeatedly told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) the Royal Society for Birds and other such bodies that that failure has nothing to do with the adjacent industrial sand eel fisheries. It now turns out that the Department's own experts had been warning it of the consequences of overfishing the sand eels since as long ago as 1983. The disastrous belated decision of DAFS to license the Shetland sand eel fishery is a typical example of its dilatoriness. We now need a similar ban on the sand eel fishery in the Minch, unless more birds are to die and to cease to breed.
The problem is that the fate of the sea-bird colonies seems to be irrelevant to DAFS, which sees its responsibility as regulating the fishery rather than upholding the Government's obligation to protect the birds. That is symptomatic of the Tory approach, which is to maximise economic exploitation of the environment, not to protect it.
The newly appointed Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) comes to the job with a reputation of being more sensitive, but I think that this is a bit of a rerun. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—when in a more junior Environment post, also had the reputation of being "green", saying the right words and even appearing at ease

1247
for his numerous photo opportunities. When it comes to matters of substance, however, he did very little, and his presence in that Department has already been forgotten.
Next March, there will be a third ministerial conference on the protection of the North sea. It will be a crucial test for the Government, because so many of the pollution problems that we create have their ultimate impact on the narrow seas that surround us. The last conference, held in 1987, agreed some measures. It agreed to give the environment the benefit of the doubt when faced with uncertainty—what is described as the precautionary principle—and assented to 50 per cent. reductions in some of the most obviously risky substances being discharged into the North sea.
Pollutants continue to accumulate, however, especially in the vulnerable coastal areas and in the narrowest part, the southern North sea. To halve the rate of discharge is no solution; it only buys time for a more fundamental shift of policy. That must be a shift from a society that is dependent on creating waste and then disposing of it to one that gives proper attention to not creating the waste in the first place. There is an opportunity here and now to do something. Public support for cleaning up the environment has never been so strong, but what is new, and what offers to make hopes of improvement a reality, is the significant thinking that is going on—even in the industries that, up to now, have been creating the waste.
The spring 1989 issue of the magazine Process Engineering was devoted entirely to the environment. It produced some interesting conclusions: that engineers are worried about the state of the environment, that there is vast potential for clean, no-waste and low-waste technology and that that could be economically viable, often with a rapid payback on the investment. However, the framework within which such companies must work is not conducive to the development of clean technologies, because there is no incentive for them to take action while waste-dumping costs are so low and regulations so lax.
Governments must act to achieve prompt and effective change. They can provide the long-term framework and objectives, and make it absolutely clear that the only way forward is a fundamental switch from our present culture of waste creation and disposal to one geared to placing a primary emphasis on clean technology and avoiding the creation of waste. That means thinking about what is being produced, as well as about the waste created during its manufacture.
Because the North sea is the sink for so much of our waste, and because the North sea conference has the scale and political clout to mean something, the forthcoming third conference must do much more. It must shift from ad hoc pollution control measures to working out a long-term planned strategy to achieve the necessary shift to clean technologies. That will give industries the guidance, structure and time with which to achieve the changes that are now possible. If that is to happen, however, countries such as Britain must realise how urgent it is for the third North sea conference to shift what has in the past been an emphasis on short-term "fix-it" measures. If we do not move on, there will be nothing left to fix.
Apart from the environmental benefits, it will be to our economic advantage if we are a prime mover. If the problem is to be resolved by united action at an international level, the growing United Kingdom pollution control industry will be presented with a wider market. If we are in the vanguard of the change, we can
1248
profit from it, but if we tag along in the rear, whingeing and moaning, we shall end up having to import products and skills when the international community finally forces us to catch up with others.
Unfortunately, there is little sign of that happening. The new Environment Secretary is supposed to have been appointed to improve the presentation of Government policy, but he will have to do more. We cannot rely on improved presentation; we shall need policy changes. I can say now that one test that will distinguish presentation from substance will be whether the right hon. Gentleman—during the current preparations for the third North sea conference, and at the conference—calls for those structural changes necessary for a clean environment. If he does not, he will have failed, and no amount of presentation will cover up his failure.
The new Secretary of State is renowned as a communicator, the implication being that his predecessor was not one. I consider that unfair: the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was a very good communicator. He made it blindingly obvious that protecting the environment could not be reconciled with the Thatcherite policies of deregulation. No amount of presentation can change that. I hope that the new Secretary of State will be able to bring some pressure and influence to bear on his colleagues to try to ensure that, when the future of everyone in this country and indeed in northern Europe is affected, we make the necessary effort and the necessary change both here and abroad. At home, and in partnership with our neighbours in northern Europe, we must work to clean up the North sea and the Irish sea. If we do not, succeeding generations will never forgive us.
8.20 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I do not intend to try to follow the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who gave us a somewhat discursive presentation of an important case involving environmental matters. I welcome his perceptive observation that there was not much of a sustained chorus of opposition to the motion for the summer adjournment. One or two hardy souls said that they would be glad to stay, as long as nobody made them do so. That is understandable.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke about a wide range of environmental matters. The new Secretary of State for the Environment recently left my former Department to join my former parliamentary private secretary in the Department of the Environment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will study the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care and enthusiasm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) made what seemed to be a serious set of allegations about what he described as inexcusable, bureaucratic mistakes in the operation of the insolvency service. That service deals with about 12,000 personal bankruptcies and company liquidations each year. That is a large number to deal with effectively. The service sets a high standard, but clearly the case that my hon. Friend cited did not measure up to that standard. I shall invite the authorities to investigate it if my hon. Friend will be kind enough to let me have the details of the case.

1249
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has been reading, as I have been, the interview with President Mitterrand and speculating about the long-term implications of the President's observations about the Government's attitude towards economic and monetary union. The hon. Gentleman cited with approval President Mitterrand's proposition that we should play the card of agreement. That is important, because President Mitterrand mentioned the desirability of proceeding with major decisions about the future of the Community in unanimous agreement. The Government share that view.
At the conclusion of the Madrid conference we made it quite clear that we would take part in any intergovernmental conference about economic and monetary union, although we emphasised that a great deal of preparatory work is necessary first. It should not take place along the exclusive lines traced out in the Delors report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some encouragement from the fact that by tenacious negotiation we were able to reach agreement on the important stages of development whether at Fontainebleau, at Luxembourg in the Single European Act, at Frankfurt or, indeed, at Madrid. The hon. Gentleman should not be too despondent about the possibility of agreement not being achievable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke comprehensively and effectively about his concern for the future of Manchester airport and the case for increasing the use of such regional airports. My hon. Friend gave a variety of reasons. One was because our other airports in the south-east are already overcrowded and the second was because we need to attract transatlantic traffic to this country rather than allowing it to go to continental airports. The third reason was for the sake of increasing prosperity in the northern airports.
I respond to my hon. Friend's case with some sympathy because my constituency is immediately adjacent to Gatwick and my constituents take great comfort from the fact that there is a prohibition on the construction of a second runway at that airport. I hope that that will enable my hon. Friend to develop his case with which the Government have always had great sympathy. At the same time we have to try to safeguard the interests of the country as a whole by ensuring that increased access for foreign airlines is traded for benefits for United Kingdom airlines. My hon. Friend said that we should use international air traffic agreements effectively to promote the right kind of airport policy. I am sure that that will continue to be the case.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made a rather robust attack on the policy of the Government in relation to the national dock labour scheme. When I reflect on the condition of the docks in Merseyside today compared with the condition of those docks when I was first elected there in 1954, I share his sense of sadness. One of the books that I had an opportunity to study in the last year or two was a magnificent specially printed book called "A Cruise in Scots Waters" which was printed in 1847. It described a cruise in which the navigators set out from the port of Liverpool in 1847.
The description of the teeming prosperity and the Venetian imperial dynamism of Liverpool in those days
1250
was a fantastic reminder of what has been lost. Sadly, a great deal of that has been lost in recent years because of the immobility of those leaders of the dock workers who have hung on to the dock work labour scheme long past its useful life. Today it is up to the employers and the employees to establish new employment arrangements that will enable the new opportunities to be seized. The hon. Member for Garston presented a rather curious case, arguing that the Government were undermining the rights of trade union members at a time when commuters and others in this city are oppressed by a proliferation of strikes rather than the reverse.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is lurking in an unfamiliar place in the Chamber, was kind enough to acknowledge that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had made significant improvements—from his point of view—to the Government's proposals on the legal profession between the Green Paper and the White Paper. He also said that the proposals adopted by our profession at the Bar in consequence of the Green Paper were the most far reaching ever set in hand. If I may say so, it was high time for such things. I have long studied the 1846 Special Select Committee report which contained a number of reforms that have long since been neglected. My hon. and learned Friend was right to say that a great deal has been achieved, and it is right for us to approach the debates in the next session on that basis.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has told me that he cannot be here for the conclusion of the debate, was one of two hon. Members who spoke about events in China. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) spoke about his impression of events in China and compared them in a rather curious fashion with his impression of the development of Hong Kong. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Bradford, North, who can describe himself as a faithful Socialist if any Opposition Member can use such a term, when he went on to describe what he called his idea of Socialism. He was obliged to disclaim as an example virtually every case of Socialism that has ever been put in place. He described with the utmost enthusiasm everything that he sees taking place in China. I wonder how Socialists view the world when they cannot find any working examples that they are not about to disclaim.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North went on to bemoan and criticise conditions in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's problems consist of trying to cope with an uncheckable torrent of refugees from Vietnam and daily and overwhelming applications from potential refugees from mainland China. The people of Hong Kong are proclaiming the freedom that they have enjoyed under British rule and seeking to be protected from the contrasts that exist in the Socialist state on the other side of the border.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North was certainly right to draw attention to the great importance as perceived by the people of Hong Kong of plans for the future location of the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have that in mind as an important point to canvass in future discussions with the Government of China.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North referred to the case of Xu Hai Ning and paid tribute, which I welcome, to the way in which Home Office officials and others have

1251
responded to his complaint. I identified some of the other activities which gave him anxiety, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) made a moving, important and characteristic contribution to our debate. I speak of him as my hon. Friend wih a particular recollection of the time when we walked down Fleet street and up Ludgate hill together to sit alongside each other for the memorial service for the death of Sir Winston Churchill. We have been Members of Parliament together. He has served with distinction in many capacities in Northern Ireland. His plea for the political leaders of Ulster to get together, to risk insults to achieve political progress for the people of Northern Ireland was, he will have noticed, heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend may not know that we are publishing tomorrow a booklet in recognition of the 20 years presence of our forces in Northern Ireland, to whom he rightly paid tribute. The booklet is entitled, "The Day of the Men and Women of Peace Must Surely Come". As my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, the booklet tries to
"demonstrate the positive and creative work of the real people of Northern Ireland and the achievements over the past 20 years."
My hon. Friend and I have not taken the same view of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but I hope that he joins me in regarding the setting in which we now find ourselves as one in which people should respond to the moving plea that he made.
I listened to the several points made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) with interest, partly because he welcomed me as a fellow Welshman to these debates. I was mindful of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) not to be carried away by that emotional coincidence. I am not so carried away as to subscribe to the critical view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that was taken by the hon. Member for Ogmore. Conservative Members share the view that the people of Wales have an outstanding Secretary of State who has achieved a great deal. A momentary Welsh debate took place between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn about the prospects for a debate on the Health Service in Wales. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a prospect of that coming about in the Welsh Grand Committee before too long.
On Sunday trading, the position of the European Court has not yet been finalised, and in those circumstances, many local authorities are not taking action until the position is clearer. As to the Children Bill, that will be the subject of debate when the House comes back after the recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) spoke of another part of the country where mining is an important activity, as it is in the Ogmore valley, but he was speaking, understandably, of his constituency and the environmental impact of opencast mining in the Erewash valley. Even so, the Government believe that opencast mining is a valuable source of economic coal and wish to develop that source, but only if that can be done in an environmentally acceptable way. That is why we issued the new mineral planning guidelines in May of last year, and those are intended to give full weight to environmental issues.
1252
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn devoted the substance of his speech to the recent serious examples of salmonella food poisoning in his constituency and he made important points. First, he paid a tribute to the health authorities that have responded so effectively to this emergency. He stressed the need for notices to be issued naming the source of such problems, giving fair warning across borders between different authorities to consumers of the hazards arising in such ways. He may like to know that the chief medical officer of the Welsh Office, having issued details of the retail outlets that have been supplied with the offending cooked cold meats, has gone on to issue today a further notice with further information on some vacuum-packed cold cooked meats from the same source that may be hazardous. I shall draw his detailed points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) gave us a long and by no means insignificant insight into some serious environmental problems with which he is rightly concerned. He spoke specifically about the Nature Conservancy Council. There is a case for conservation policy to be formulated on a Great Britain basis. We are fully aware of that, if only to enable us to comply with international obligations. However that should not be allowed to overshadow the real benefits for nature conservation that will flow from regional organisations as well. The balance is intended to be right, but I shall draw his points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the newly appointed Secretary of State for the Environment. He will have noticed yesterday during Question Time that my right hon. Friend responded to the approach made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) by saying that he would try to establish a common approach to environmental policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) urged me to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury and the Office of Arts and Libraries to the needs of the English National Opera and the English National Ballet. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is aware of the situation and is confident that a means will be found to allow both organisations to continue their excellent work.
My hon. Friend joined the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in drawing attention to the concerns arising from the impact of possible changes in the inner London highway system. Rather ambitiously, he said that he would tackle this problem with wig, pen and sword. With the greatest respect to the learned Clerks, I cannot see what value a wig would have. He should take note of the fact that the studies in which he is concerned are about improving conditions for residents, cyclists, pedestrians, business and those travelling in these areas. They are looking at combinations of public transport, parking control and enforcement, and not simply the construction of new highways.
Finally, I acknowledge the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Gooclhart). I hope that he will forgive me if I do not reply in detail. I have done so before, and I should not like to trespass at this stage on the reply that he is likely to get in due course from my successor in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I commend the motion to the House and wish hon. Members on both sides of the House a happy summer holiday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 28 July, do adjourn until Tuesday 17th October.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  Eastern Europe
  8.39 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It has been an honour and a privilege for two years to have led the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. It is a pleasure because the delegation is mixed politically and works remarkably well. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who leads the Labour group, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who acts as my Whip, and whose idea it was to ask for this debate. He asked whether I would support it in writing; I did so, and the ballot produced my name first. I hope that he will not mind if I say some of the things that he might have said.
  I wanted particularly to talk about the Council of Europe because of what I can only call the distorted, inaccurate and outdated attack made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on 14 July at columns 1269–71. It was his second speech in a two-day foreign affairs debate. I pause to wonder whether any other Privy Councillor has ever exercised the privilege of making speeches on two successive days, thus depriving colleagues of speaking time. I have never before attacked my right hon. Friend in public; I felt that it was not right to do so. On this occasion he will not be able to say that he has heard it all before. I cannot allow his words to remain unchallenged on the record.
  My right hon. Friend said that the Council of Europe achieved useful work during its early years. He added that it was formed as a forum for discussion and nothing more, and that it had never been able to fulfil any other purpose.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No, I shall not give way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me for not doing so. He will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and will understand that others wish to speak. That is why I would rather not give way on this occasion.
  Mr. Banks rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He normally gives way when hon. Members wish to intervene.

  1255
  I know the hon. Gentleman to be an honourable man and I inquire whether he notified his former leader and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), that he would make these comments.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I notified my right hon. Friend through his parliamentary private secretary. I suggest that among colleagues there is no purpose in making such a point.
  In this, as in so many other ways, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is out of touch and out of date. For example, he may not have heard of the Colombo commission, which had many distinguished members, many of them as committed Europeans as himself. The members of the commission concluded that the Council of Europe was vital in achieving closer unity among Europeans. The 40th anniversary communiqué of the Council of Ministers of the 23, which include the 12, stated:
  "We are determined to exploit the Council of Europe's potential in full by giving a new impetus and political direction to the intergovernmental co-operation conducted within its framework. We are counting on the promotional and initiatory action of the Assembly, which as parliamentary organ of the Council of Europe composed of members of national Parliaments is in constant touch with the public's wishes and concerns and provides the essential link with national democratic institutions.
  To strengthen the means of action it intends
  "to integrate the conferences of specialised Ministers more fully into the Council of Europe's institutional framework and decision-making process;
  c. to maintain the political dialogue within the Committee of Ministers with emphasis on the political aspects of European co-operation in general and … to ensure that public opinion is better informed of the Council of Europe's aims and achievements."
  That is enough to show that the views of my right hon. Friend are not shared by the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy or the United Kingdom, who signed that unanimous declaration. Nor are his views shared by many friends in all parties of the Council of Europe who come from France, Germany and Italy.
  Another current issue is the social charter. The Council of Europe has a remarkably good social charter that works. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, but her views were endorsed unanimously at the European Council at Rhodes on 2 and 3 December 1988. The communiqué read:
  "As regards implementation of social rights, the European Council awaits such proposals as the Commission might consider useful to submit having drawn inspiration from the social charter of the Council of Europe."
  Mr. Mitterrand does not share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup about the Council of Europe.
  I shall leave what I call the past, but it was essential to set the record straight, or what the Ministers said in their communiqué about enlisting public opinion would not have had effect.
  We have three European bodies to consider: the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. The European Parliament is directly elected and its members derive their support from direct elections. The members of the Council of Europe and the WEU are drawn from national Parliaments—from us. It is a more valuable method of approach to raise on the Floor of the House the issues that concern us at the Council of Europe or the Western European Union. That
  1256
  method is essential in more than one way. In the period immediately ahead we must try to work as good Europeans. That does not mean one European state. but achieving unity of purpose with a diversity of culture and nationhood. Each organisation has its own distinct task to perform.
  Economic and trade matters are for the European Community and the European Parliament. Defence and security are for the Western European Union. Those powers are given to the WEU by treaty—the modified Brussels treaty of 1954—and are not weakened by the Single European Act. The WEU has been strengthened immensely by four recent events. The first was the accession of Portugal and Spain. The second was the out-of-area activities in the Gulf where, for the first time, every member of the WEU co-operated. Luxembourg, which does not have a Navy, contributed financially towards the cost of the operations, and that was much appreciated. The third was the broad measure of support and endorsement given to the WEU by the present and previous United States Administrations.
  The fourth event was the distinguished chairmanship of the Council of Ministers of the WEU by the British Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Member for Wentworth, who outside this place I would call my friend, will agree that, remembering the other Chairmen of the Council, ours were outstanding. My right hon. and learned Friend the former Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence did a first-class job and got things done, which was extremely important.
  The Council of Europe is responsible for cultural, environmental, human rights and related matters that can provide the bridge between East and West. The building of that bridge is probably the most important task to which the Council has set its hand during the past few months. The time has come when there is an opening and an opportunity for the bridge to be constructed. Not only was Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Strasbourg significant for his choice of the Council of Europe to address, but the Council's parliamentary assembly—which now embraces all 23 nations of western Europe and Scandinavia, making it the largest European organisation extant—extended guest membership to the USSR, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland.
  Those who attended the latter part of that session could not have been anything but moved by the speeches of the Poles and Hungarians in particular. It was emotionally moving to hear the Poles, a very gallant people, speaking again in a democratic institution after 40 years or more of silence. The speech of the Soviet representative was encouraging because it recognised that Soviet internal laws must be changed to bring into force some of the human rights provisions to which the Soviets have signed their name under the Helsinki agreement. It was the most interesting meeting that I have attended for many years.
  Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend's remarks totally give the lie to the allegations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Does my hon. Friend agree that the Council of Europe is so enhanced that it is paving the way and, in a pioneering spirit, is recording achievements that were unthought of even five years ago?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is significant that the Council of Ministers within the Council of Europe contains the identical Ministers who comprise the Council of Ministers in the European Community. Clearly they believe that the Council of Europe performs a function that cannot be fulfilled by the Community.
  Even more, in the next few months we shall see the signing of certain Council of Europe conventions by its new guest members, which will also represent an enormous advance. Mr. Gorbachev's comment that we must all work together to achieve clean, safe nuclear power, and his offer to share ideas on how to achieve that, were among the most helpful contributions that I have heard for a long time. Much of that work can be done in the Council of Europe. The Council is not a mere talking shop, which was the criticism at the heart of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, but a parliamentary assembly for Europe which, if progress is made as we hope, will in time offer full membership to all of Europe—east, west and central. A Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals is surely what we all want, because that would herald a real era of peace.
  I am proud to be a vice-president of the WEU and the Council of Europe, because that gives me an insight into what can be achieved. The Council, the WEU and the European Parliament each has a separate job to do, but they should work in harmony to avoid duplication or triplication. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, and if he is to be our ministerial link with the Council of Europe, I shall be delighted. I ask him to put some pressure on the Council of Ministers of the European Community to intervene when it witnesses the European Parliament embarking on action in areas that are clearly not its concern. The European Parliament is attempting to become involved in defence, for example, which is totally outwith its competence. It would be helpful if the Ministers of the Twelve would say so. Although they cannot stop the European Parliament becoming involved, they could at least make it clear that that is not the European Parliament's task. It also wants to get in on the act in respect of the Council of Europe's activities on human rights. That is fine, and I am delighted that it is interested, but the European Parliament has other important work to do. If the Ministers, wearing their Twelve hats, would say so, it would be very welcome.
  I have never shared the view often expressed that the work that right hon. and hon. Members do outside this Chamber is not important. Through our ability to represent, in European assemblies, different strands of opinion from this Chamber, we can offer Europe some of the ideas of democracy that have been ours for a long time. We can demonstrate that one can consider arguments made rationally in debate, rather than endure a series of set speeches. In that way the Council of Europe, which has just celebrated its 40th anniversary, can look forward to celebrating an equally successful 50th anniversary.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on initiating this debate, even though one reason for it was to criticise his right hon. Friend for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in that domestic and internal dispute, but the debate is important
  1258
  because it is about not only the Council of Europe but the relationship between it and what is still called eastern Europe.
  Momentous changes are occurring in Europe, and it is in everyone's interest to ensure that Europe's institutions play their part in ensuring that those changes occur in a peaceful and orderly manner. Yalta, the post-war settlement, cannot survive perestroika. Eastern Europe is rapidly becoming central Europe again. When we debate these matters again in five years' time, perhaps we shall not talk about eastern Europe but about central Europe.
  The Soviet Union is, sadly perhaps, in some decline, and the corollary is that Germany is in the ascendancy. The countries of what we still call eastern Europe are moving towards democratic, pluralistic societies. Poland and Hungary are in the vanguard, and, despite Czechoslovakia's problems, and given its strong democratic, industrial and manufacturing traditions, it will not be very far behind. It is in the interest of us all, both on the Left and on the Right in Europe, to ensure that changes are made quietly and peaceably.
  I do not want to introduce a partisan note, but there is a danger that certain people on the radical Right in Europe, or more so in the United States, and who may number among them emigres or those who want to pay off old scores against eastern Europe and its Communist parties, may want to push change too fast and propel the countries of eastern Europe towards a kind of Hayekian, Right-wing capitalist society. I do not believe that those countries want that. I think that they want to move gradually back into the social democratic traditions of western Europe. I even believe—I have no evidence for this—that President Gorbachev would like to move the Soviet Union gradually back towards those social democratic traditions. We must be careful not to push change too quickly. We must also be careful not to push our ideology on those countries, but to let change develop gradually and peacefully.
  The great unmentionable is Germany. As the Soviet Union declines, Germany will become more powerful. The German Democratic Republic cannot survive perestroika. In the end, it cannot survive the changes taking place in Hungary, in Poland and—I think and I hope—in Czechoslovakia. The GDR, like the Federal Republic of Germany, is a state, not a nation. Whereas Hungary and Poland can adapt to those changes, the GDR, being to some extent an artificial state, cannot maintain the reason for its existence, which has been the 40 years of a division of Europe.
  We must face the fact—I do not say this in any fear or panic—that perestroika and the changes that we all want to see will lead, sooner rather than later, to what may be described as the reunification of Germany. I do not know whether that will be done through a federal concept. The policy of Labour and Conservative Governments has been that the wall should come down. If it does, we must think through the consequences for Germany and for Germany's position in that part of Europe.
  When the reunification comes, Germany will be even stronger. The Soviet Union will have to reach an accommodation with Germany. Reaching an accommodation with Germany may well lead to the reunification of Germany because the Soviet Union will need the technological advice and the industrial assistance which only Germany can provide in that part of Europe.

  1259
  Whether we like it or not, we shall gradually see German economic domination of the countries to the east of Germany which we now call eastern Europe. In Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary we shall see German economic hegemony. We shall also see that moving through the Ukraine into the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Gorbachev calls for a common European house. Perhaps that will come about.
  Sir Dudley Smith: Home.
  Mr. Davies: There is some debate about that. If it is a common European home, that is all very well. But that home will be situated in what I would call a common deutschmark zone because the deutschmark and the power of Germany will dominate the common European home or house in that part of Europe. Just as the deutschmark is dominating the western part of Europe, it will also dominate the eastern part of Europe as perestroika proceeds.
  The French panic about such matters. They have spotted that situation and have thought about it. Apparently M. Mitterrand and M. Jacques Delors think that the German juggernaut can be prevented from going east or west by creating some sort of common currency, whether it is called the ecu or anything else. The central bank in Brussels will apparently stop Germany's industrial and economic might. That will not work. A currency is only as strong as the industrial and economic power of the country behind it. But the French have come up with a wheeze and no doubt they will try to push it. Whatever happens to European economic and monetary union, it will not work.
  We do not know what the British Government think. We welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. I do not expect him to deal with the matter tonight, but one of these days, we must debate the issue in a wider context than tonight's debate. As far as I am aware we have not yet debated it at all. It is the great unmentionable. We are told that the Prime Minister is a bit worried about German domination and does not know what to do about it. With our weak economy there is nothing that we can do about it. But at least we can start debating the matter. At least we can see that, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, the institutions of Europe can be used to ensure peaceful change. In the end, we must also debate what we think about the possible or probable reunification of Germany. Those matters are better debated. We have swept them under the carpet for too long.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. James Hill: I was extremely surprised when I read the report of the foreign affairs debate on Friday 14 July in which a person whom I have respected over many years, in a tirade, almost of denigration, suddenly turned against the work so ably carried out by the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I was appointed to the European Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1973. I was appointed the chairman of the first British committee of transport and regional planning about three months later and I served for 10 years in the Council of Europe.
  As Whip of the delegation I know how hard most of our members work and how dedicated we are to bringing to a
  1260
  successful conclusion what seems to be a tremendous opportunity now, with Mr. Gorbachev pinpointing Strasbourg—not the Strasbourg of the Economic Community, but the Strasbourg of the Council of Europe—to make a major speech. Mr. Gorbachev has also put his seal of approval on the fact that we are now inviting as guests 18 representatives from the USSR, six from Hungary, seven from Poland and eight from Yugoslavia. He is determined to establish links with us, especially on some of our committees with scientific and technological knowledge—for example, the defence and armaments committee of the WEU, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) is chairman.
  Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend will also be well aware that the WEU has recently received a high-level visit from representatives of the Supreme Soviet, including a general and others, who came to the WEU headquarters in Paris for discussions. That was another tremendous advance in political representatives' thinking and understanding.
  Mr. Hill: Quite so, and those of us who had not worked with Russians at the committee table before were surprised by the tremendous degree of glasnost which was evident in Paris only two or three weeks ago.
  I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emphasised the work done on the social charter in the past. It was quite obvious to me that my right hon. Friend saw no reason to accept Mr. Delors's version of the social charter because on 18 October 1961 we signed a European social charter along with 13 other nations. That process has continued to expand through the work of the various committees of the Council of Europe, and it is now fairly obvious to most of us who know Europe that the Commission is picking up most of its ideas on the subject from work done by the Council of Europe in the past.
  One of the recent books that has been produced is the report on the activities of the Council of Europe in 1987. I recommend it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup because it may help to bring him up to date with the work of the Council of Europe. It is sad that 36 Members of this House and the other place should go to Europe and work on these matters only to find ihat a well-respected right hon. Friend suddenly seems to know little about the work that is done.
  My right hon. Friend obviously knows about the work of the European Court of Human Rights, and he probably knows that more than 14,500 cases have been investigated by that court since 1950, but does he know a great deal about the European social charter introduced in 1965? Does he know that we have a convention on the eradication of torture, which was opened for signature in November 1987? Does he realise that we have explored terrorism to the extent of declaring that certain acts of terrorism can no longer be regarded as political crimes for the purposes of extradition and mutual assistance? Is not the Council well ahead with the problems of terrorism, in its 1977 convention on the suppression of terrorism? What about data protection, which is almost a new subject? We were discussing it in 1981 in the Council of Europe. What about wildlife, the new "in" thing with which everyone is so concerned? We had a convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats in June 1982.

  1261
  The list is long and sometimes I despair that we will ever break through, not to the 400 million Europeans but to the community of 600 here in the Palace of Westminster. After the Heysel stadium tragedy in 1985 we had a convention which laid down binding agreements to deal with hooliganism. We have a convention on transfrontier co-operation. That ensures co-operation on major roads and bridges and the free transport of goods and so on. We have also dealt with local self-government. Lately we have dealt with audio-visual issues. We have a European convention on transfrontier television. The Stockholm conference was a tremendous success. Everyone assumed that it was something to do with the Community, but it was to do with the work carried out by the Council of Europe.
  There is a long list of other conventions. We have a convention on insider trading which has been one of the most serious issues in this country in the past couple of years. We have also dealt with international bankruptcy. We have to work on a complete European scale to obtain any control.
  The problem is that very few people know about the work done on drug abuse by the Pompidou group. Very few people know about the youth activities in the Community or the work done by the Council of Europe, covering the European youth centre and the European Youth Foundation. Does anybody here know about that? What is wrong with our public relations? Are we not getting it through to our elder statesmen that Europe has moved on?
  We are hoping to co-operate with Mr. Gorbachev on his idea of a pan-European process. Will we ever be able to have a cross-fertilisation of ideas with the iron curtain countries? Are we seeing the first break in the wall to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred? Has not Hungary destroyed its own fences and the land mines that separate it from Austria? As Winston Churchill said, we should have "talk-talk, not war-war"—I am sure that someone will correct me.
  Mr. Michael Lord: "Jaw-jaw."
  Mr. Hill: I hope that Hansard got all that.
  We do jaw a lot. I must apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. However, at the end of the day we make sense. If the 23 Ministers in the Council of Ministers wish to pick up some of the wisdom that we documented it is perfectly right for them to do so. Those of us who are interested need to explain to those who do not know exactly what the work entails.
  There are three sections in the title of the debate. I have already dealt with the Council of Europe. Many other hon. Members will deal with the Western European Union, which deals with defence, and the links with Europe which will pervade everything we do in Europe in the next decade. We will endeavour from time to time to bring fresh issues from Strasbourg to the House hoping that we can find further slots in which to discuss them.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) for providing the House with a great deal of detail about the achievement of the Council of Europe over the past
  1262
  decade. If I take issue with him at all, it would be over the fact that the Berne convention was slightly earlier than the date that he gave, because it responded to a report that I presented to the Assembly. I am obliged to him and he serves this debate, as he serves the delegation, extremely well.
  About five years ago the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that he often disagreed with me, but "not today". I often disagree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, but not today. In introducing this debate, his speech was a model of clarity and could well be copied by educational institutions which want a brief but accurate digest of the current structures of European activity.
  I will follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate in criticising the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In 1975, at the height of the leadership struggle in the Conservative party, I presented a Bill which became the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. In schedule 2, I included the "blue heath" in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would survive. If I could remove the "blue heath" from that Act after the debate on 14 July, I would. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup did a great disservice to the House by presenting a grossly inaccurate assessment of the current political position in Europe, and an unjust criticism of the Council of Europe.
  On 14 July, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested that the Council of Europe was merely a political forum. I believe that Europe needs a political forum, as the Community is bogged down in the morass of detail which always seems to engage it nowadays. Someone had to provide the stage on which history could be made. Those of us who were present when Mr. Gorbachev visited the Council of Europe will long remember that historic moment, just as we have cause for satisfaction, if not pride, in the fact that we took part in the decision to establish guest status.
  I would like to entertain a rather selfish hope. When the environment committee of the Council of Europe, which I still chair, visits Yorkshire in October, I hope that the guest members will attend that first meeting of the Council of Europe outside Strasbourg. It would be very fitting if those members came to this country. Although the media in Britain scarcely recognises the existence of the Council of Europe and its many activities, it is fair to say that over the years British parliamentarians from both sides of the House have made a disproportionate contribution to the activities of the Assembly.
  I want to follow the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We need to ensure that a political forum exists, because the pace of change, which is dramatic in 1989, presents Europe and the world with serious challenges. In the debate on 14 July, to which reference has already been made, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to some of the problems that face the world. He said that 22 countries have missile programmes and 17 countries already have missiles in place. We know from meetings of the Western European Union a few months ago that probably 26 countries now have a chemical weapon capacity, and that number may be much higher in a few months' time.
  Given that kind of challenge and uncertainty, it is right that the Council of Europe should provide a platform and forum for discussion and provide Russia and the other

  1263
  eastern European countries with an avenue towards democracy. However, it should do that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, with a degree of common sense which must recognise that the process must be gradual. It must have our encouragement and be assisted by material provision and the neighbourly political approach that the Strasbourg assembly can offer.
  At this stage of history, the Council of Europe is in a more important position than ever. Therefore, next time he embarks on a foreign affairs debate, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would be wiser to look more widely. It is all very well for politicians to fix their eyes on the distant uplands of supranational sanity of world peace and international accord, but, if they flounder in the morass of the bureaucracy that they cannot perceive immediately in front of them, they do themselves, their country and their continent a disservice.
  As the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate and for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) know, the Members of my committee sought to work with members of the European Parliament environment committee last year. We actually took ourselves to Brussels to meet them. It is not an experience that we would wish to repeat. Their main interest was in trying to impress us by telling us how many hundreds upon hundreds of directives they had agreed and how many tonnes of paper they had approved, and they seemed to think that we should automatically go out of existence.
  On 14 July the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to Austria. Our friends in Austria and Switzerland today resent the bureaucratic approach that the Community adopts. The bureaucratic approach in Brussels is taken nearly to the point of arrogance. It seems to assume that Austria and Switzerland, being non-member states of the Community, must recognise transport priorities and allow international transport to thunder through their mountain passes. Our Austrian and Swiss colleagues have rightly used the Council of Europe to show that they are not prepared to tolerate that approach.
  There is a place for the Council of Europe. The place is historic and the role is substantial. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will sustain that role and that Europe will recognise that it is of continuing importance.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: As the shadows of this declining Session lengthen and as the busy world of Parliament is hushed, the small voice of European experience and reason is still heard in the calm reflective atmosphere. How welcome it is. I congratulate the leader of our delegation, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), on introducing the debate. How good, too, it was to hear the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in this foreign affairs debate. We miss his intellect and incisive wit in defence debates. It was stimulating to hear him ponder on the future of Europe and on how perestroika will affect the Yalta settlement of our continent.
  Other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), have spoken mainly about the Council of Europe. Apart from a brief postscript
  1264
  to my remarks about the Council of Europe and its relations with eastern Europe, I shall deal with the Western European Union.
  Since the Brussels treaty was modified by the Paris protocols in 1954, British interest in the WEU has been spasmodic and often lukewarm. There have, been occasions when the Western Europan Union has been politically useful for the United Kingdom—above all as a point of contact with the six original member countries of the EC following President de Gaulle's veto on Britain's first application to join the European Community, until Britain decided to join the Community in the early 1970s.
  However, from the date of Britain's accession in 1973 until the reactivation of the WEU in Rome in 1984, or even until the platform of European security interests was agreed in 1987, the United Kingdom appeared to show little interest in the potential of either the WEU Ministerial Council in London as a forum for concerting west European security policy, or in the potential of the WEU Assembly in Paris—the sole parliamentary institution empowered by treaty to debate defence issues and to make recommendations on security policy to the Councils of Defence and Foreign Ministers of the member countries.
  Since, after 1954, NATO was entrusted with responsibility for the military aspects of the Brussels treaty's mutual security provisions, the United Kingdom has always felt ambivalent towards the WEU, lest the attempt to create a stronger western European defence identity within the Atlantic Alliance be seen by the United States as an attempt by seven west European nations, albeit collectively, to usurp the predominant role of the Americans within the NATO alliance.
  In practice, as the economic strength of western Europe has grown relative to that of the United States, our American friends, driven by a desire to see the Europeans assume a fairer share of the common burden of Alliance defence, have been more and more supportive of efforts to reinvigorate the WEU, both institutionally and by enlargement through the accession of Portugal and Spain.
  Not only are the mutual defence requirements of the Brussels treaty more binding than those of the north Atlantic treaty, but they are not geographically limited as are those of NATO. As the projection of Soviet military power has become increasingly global, the relevance of the out-of-area provisions of WEU's founding treaty have grown. That was emphasised during the Iran-Iraq war, when the WEU was the political instrument for securing joint action in the Gulf by the navies of Britain, Belgium, France, Holland and Italy, with financial assistance from Luxembourg and compensatory naval deployment to the Mediterranean provided by West Germany. That out-of-area naval co-operation much impressed the United States and the WEU was publicly praised for it by President Bush.
  It is important not to lose the momentum generated towards reinvigorating and enlarging the WEU. First, the aim should be clearly stated of encouraging all the Euro-group nations to join. Secondly, collocation of the Ministerial Council, agency and Assembly in a single site should be achieved at the earliest possible date. I have said before that county hall, London would have been an ideal headquarters for all the WEU as it has ample office space, committee rooms and, of course, a fine hemicycle. Furthermore, the United Kingdom lacks a major

  1265
  European institution and, as the most Atlantic of the WEU nations, collocation of all WEU's organs in London would have reassured the Americans.
  As it is, the Government favour Brussels for the headquarters of the WEU, but that is fundamentally unacceptable to France and there is no point in antagonising further the WEU's strongest supporter.
  If the British Government will still not press for London, Paris should be the chosen headquarters for the WEU. After all, Paris already houses the Assembly and agency, the proposed WEU defence institute is to be located there, France plays a key role in European defence, and other major international institutions, such as the European Space Agency and the OECD, are situated in Paris.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend about London, but I acknowledge the necessity of getting right the location of the headquarters of the WEU. I agree with my hon. Friend that the momentum must be carried on and that we must be vigilant, because I hear rumours that Mr. Delors has established an advisory team on defence. It appears that there may be a takeover in due course.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as chairman of the committee on defence questions and armaments of the WEU knows much about these matters. He gives a further reason why we must place emphasis on the reinvigoration of the WEU and on making it active.
  A revived, enlarged and renewed WEU would be invaluable in concerting a joint western European position on key strategic issues, East-West relations, arms control and out-of-area security problems. I do not think that, through the WEU or any other institution, the west European nations should try to achieve an arms control position different from that of the Americans. It is important that the Americans negotiate on our behalf. The west European nations should have a single position that they can share with their American allies. The European members of NATO could more easily speak with one voice to their American allies and harmonise a single west European position on matters such as Ostpolitik, inter-German relations, which were alluded to by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), technology, credit transfer to Warsaw pact countries, terrorism, low-intensity operations and out-of-area military threats.
  Furthermore, the WEU should provide the motor to impel closer European arms co-operation. It should be the political driving force behind the independent European programme group and should help to set the priorities for a European defence research agency to manage common technology projects, funded by a common military research fund.
  The WEU should become the forum for the formulation of a west European military space strategy, identifying the technologies required and concerting a military space programme complementary to that of the United States. As the European Space Agency is precluded by statute from military space activity, industry Ministers of WEU member countries who sit on the ESA military council should, ex officio, be co-opted on to the WEU Ministerial Council to assist their Defence Minister colleagues to agree a European military space strategy.
  1266
  The WEU should be the vehicle for European defence rationalisation by encouraging joint training, exchange postings of personnel, the use of other countries' ranges, exercise areas and test and research facilities. Its aim must be to strengthen the west European contribution within NATO and to mobilise the backing of political, parliamentary and public opinion for that purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate rightly made clear the advantage of the WEU and the Council of Europe. The members of those parliamentary assemblies are members of their national Parliaments. They can mobilise parliamentary and public opinion in their countries and vote the funds necessary to achieve the European objectives pursued through the WEU and the Council of Europe.
  Ultimately, a European defence policy co-ordinated in the WEU, and agreed by the United States and Canada, should play a bigger role in guaranteeing western interests worldwide as well as the freedom of member states of the WEU. That European defence policy would draw on the specialist and traditional expertise of European nations within NATO, so that Britain's treaty commitment of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the continent of Europe, laid down in the Paris protocols of 1954 to the Brussels treaty, could be accommodated and, if necessary, adapted by international agreement to the realities of the dynamic political reform affecting central and eastern Europe and to the changed nature of the East-West security system in Europe brought about by the arms control and disarmament process.
  In short, the United Kingdom has a unique opportunity to take a major initiative in the security dimension of European construction. This is the key area of west European co-operation. It is still the responsibility of sovereign states working together for a common purpose outside the European Community framework, but in a manner in which all our peoples and electorates can take pride.
  In conclusion, I must allude to the guest status which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has granted to representatives from the legislative assemblies of Hungary, Poland, the USSR and Yugoslavia. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I welcome to his new functions at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that this aspect of the work of the Council of Europe is worth monitoring closely.
  I urge a certain amount of caution. When I listened to President Gorbachev's speech, I felt that it was an overt political attempt to put western Europe within the Soviet sphere of influence. His idea of the common European home is that he should be the landlord and that we should be the tenants. When we grant special status to the USSR, we must remember that the Baltic states, for example, have a right to nationhood that we recognise de jure by not accepting the forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940. In addition, the Ukraine and Byelorussia have a distinct status in that they are individually recognised by the United Nations. To imagine that human rights in the USSR are rosy would be to delude ourselves. The lot of the refuseniks is a hard one and the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox churches are still banned.
  We are proceeding cautiously and, I believe, wisely. I urge the Minister and the Government to keep a watching

  1267
  brief on these matters and to do their best to reinvigorate Britain's role within the WEU, because that organisation has considerable potential.

  Eastern Europe

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

    1. Appropriation 1989 Act

    2. Finance Act 1989

    3. Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Act 1989

    4. Representation of the People Act 1989

    5. Electricity Act 1989

    6. Dangerous Dogs Act 1989

    7. Human Organs Transplants Act 1989

    8. Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989

    9. Extradition Act 1989

    10. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

    11. Continental Shelf Act 1989

    12. Associated British Ports (Hull) Act 1989

    13. London Regional Transport (No. 2) Act 1989

    14. Hayle Harbour Act 1989

    15. Queen Mary and Westfield College Act 1989

    Eastern Europe
    Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    9.40 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on his distinguished leadership of our delegation to the Council of Europe, a sentiment which will be supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who spoke eloquently earlier. I was rather puzzled by the addition of the subject of the Western European Union, which is rather less relevant to eastern Europe, but the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) tried skilfully to keep within the terms of the debate. I also welcome the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) to his first foreign affairs appearance. He will be aware that press reports, malicious as ever, claim that he shares the Prime Minister's hostility to the European Community. I am sure that he will do his best to disprove any such suggestion.
    The Council of Europe has a chequered history. According to its foundation article, it was
    "to achieve a greater unity between its Members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage, and facilitating their economic and social progress."
    Ernest Bevin disliked it. He said that when that Pandora's box was opened, all sorts of Trojan horses would come out. It was established among the plethora of post-war international organisations as the best level of European co-operation attainable at the time. It continued, even though at times it gave the impression of having lasted longer than was justified by the role that the member countries were prepared to afford to it—in short, no one had the heart to end it.
    I recall in 1959, when it was the 10th anniversary of the Council, the Council of Ministers' deputies and other
    1268
    delegates were suggesting a means of commemorating that anniversary. Some suggested a new palace in Strasbourg and others suggested a statue to Paul-Henri Spaak. The wise Irish delegate was alleged to have suggested meekly that there should be five minutes' silence.
    Having once been the desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for the Council of Europe, I confess that it is fair to say that for at least part of its history it was searching for a role. From time to time Governments, for their own purposes, have tried to breathe new life and energy into it, just as in the early 1960s, for example, after the failure of the first Gaullist veto, the British Government tried to breathe new life into WEU. I am confident now, as hon. Members who know the Council of Europe better than I will agree, that it has discovered an enhanced and valuable role even greater than the technical conventions, which themselves are important, and the key work that it has done in human rights through the convention, the commission and the court.
    What is the enhanced role that the Council can now play? Perhaps one should first clarify what it cannot do, and I was surprised at the tirades of freemasonry from members of the Council against the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was not the blue heath, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth suggested—the blasted heath might be a more appropriate simile.
    One can appreciate why feathers were ruffled, as the right hon. Gentleman's views were clearly somewhat outdated when he suggested that the Council was no more than a talk shop and
    "a useful forum for discussion and nothing more."
    I concede that he played down the positive contribution that the Council would make. In mitigation, however, he went on to say, as the second leg of his criticism, that the Prime Minister's new-found praise for the Council of Europe raised questions as to "whether the British Government want to weaken the Community rather than strengthen it."—[Official Report, 14 July 1989; Vol. 156, col 1269.]
    In other words, there were grounds for suggesting that the signals given by the Government in their recent enthusiasm for the Council suggested a diversionary tactic for avoiding European Community obligations and giving a wrong signal, which could be added to others, in respect of our commitment to the Community. That is a serious point. There has traditionally been insensitivity towards the Community, as was illustrated by the recent changes in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by yesterday's speech, showing a lack of patience, by President Mitterrand.
    Of course the Council of Europe's social charter is important, but it is not obligatory on those who have signed it. It is essentially declaratory and is wholly different from the aims of the European Community social charter as promulgated by Mr. Delors and others. It is fair to say that President Gorbachev exaggerated what the Council could do when he spoke at the Palais de l'Europe on 6 July. He spoke about the pan-European community of the next century and about Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Is that anything more than rhetorical nonsense? Is he seriously suggesting that the Soviet Union can be split into two, into its European and Asian halves? When President Gorbachev talks about the "common European home", is

    1269
    he conveniently forgetting that a large wall with watchtowers on the greater part of it runs through the parlour of that home?
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman has told us that he was a desk officer at the Foreign Office, so he surely recalls that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and that a substantial part of Turkey is in Asia. Perhaps a precedent has been set and the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Soviet Union may not be so accurate as he might wish.
    Mr. Anderson: Yes, I shall say a few words about Turkey. I believe that Metternich said that Asia begins at the Landstrasse Hauptstrasse from Vienna, which might irritate some of our Hungarian friends and others, but perhaps I had better not open the vast volume that is Turkey at this stage.
    Having said that, it is only fair to respond to the Gorbachev initiative and say that as yet there has been an inadequate western response to the vision that he put before the Council.
    The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was at least partly correct in the criticisms that he made during our recent foreign affairs debate. The Council of Europe is a vehicle for intergovernmental co-operation through Ministers and Ministers' deputies. Of course, the consultative assembly was initially just that—a consultative assembly—bringing together parliamentarians, but as the catalogue of achievements set out so well by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has shown, it has developed into something much more. It now has a new role at a time when the super-power hegemony in both eastern and western Europe is diminishing and when western European countries are growing closer together and, paradoxically, eastern European countries are moving further apart.
    I stress to the Government that the Council is not and cannot be an alternative to the European Community, but it has special capacities which the European Community does not have, due to its membership and its role. Like a well-tried brand of beer, the Council can reach places which the European Community cannot. With the accession of Finland in May, all the countries of western Europe—all of democratic Europe—are part of the Council. The process is being completed. I welcome the opening to the East that is shown by guest status which, I understand, is analogous to the observer status that is possible under statute.
    I welcome the enormous and impressive work that the Council has done in conventions. It is clear that there is a need for cross-frontier East-West co-operation in the areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred, such as the environment, drugs, terrorism, television and the other areas that have been mentioned. I welcome the initiatives that the Council has taken in bridge building in eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and the middle east. It is an example to other institutions, and can be considered a core body. It is at the centre of a constellation of other relationships, and sets a precedent for Turkey's relationship with the core or inner group—the European Community.
    Human rights and the commitment to them must be an essential prerequisite of any relationship with the Council
    1270
    of Europe, and that is consistent with the reasons for its establishment. I was therefore glad to see that adherence to the Helsinki process, and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, was designated necessary to the new guest status and so has put a sine qua non on that relationship.
    I am struck by the pace of change in eastern Europe. I lived in Hungary in the early 1960s, and I contrast that experience with an experience I had on 15 March this year, when I watched a procession of Hungarians of all ages and classes on their new national day, as opposed to the November national day. Last Sunday, I had a telephone call from a Hungarian friend—Rozsik Gabor—who said that he had just won a by-election against the official candidate. That is the first victory by an opposition candidate since 1947, and gives some indication of the pace of change in central Europe.
    The Council of Europe embodies the wider European tradition, which is based on the Judaeo-Christian ethos. Human rights are fundamental to the ideals of individual liberty and common culture. Yes, the Council of Europe is limited, but it is valuable. It can help to re-establish those traditions, and it does not deal just with technical matters such as conventions—it is a valuable political tool. The Council becomes more necessary as the super-powers reduce their role in Europe. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, central Europe needs to be redefined. The future role of Germany, both politically and economically, within central Europe needs to be redefined. The German question is back on the agenda.
    We should be true to those traditions. When we consider the valuable role that the Council can play, we should not be sidetracked from those principles of individual liberty and pluralism which were fundamental to the founding fathers of the Council in 1949.
    9.52 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) raised this important matter. It is appropriate that he should have raised issues relating to the Council of Europe in its 40th anniversary year—of which he is as proud as the rest of the House. Britain was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe and we remain committed to the principles on which it was founded.
    My hon. Friend has given, and continues to give, magnificent service to the Council of Europe, and to the Western European Union. He has been a member of the assembly since 1983, and has been leader of the all-party delegation since 1987. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a warm and sincere tribute to his distinguished leadership of that delegation, and to his colleagues in the delegation, who work so hard in the service of the House and of the Council.
    I should also like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have wished me well on my debut. It is not quite my debut in a foreign affairs debate, but it is as a Foreign Office Minister. I have, of course, participated in rather more debates about European Community directives at a late hour than I like to think about, and matters relating to the Community are by no means new

    1271
    to me. Nevertheless, I look forward keenly to an expanded role, and I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the debate at this especially auspicious time.
    If the way in which the debate has been conducted is any indication of the way in which debates are conducted in the Council of Europe—and I am sure that it is—we have some idea of the Council's important role. Members from both sides of the House debate important matters in a serious, well-informed and measured way. That bodes very well for the future of both the Council and the Western European Union. I am a newcomer to these matters, and I shall look to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for help and guidance.
    We are witnessing momentous changes in eastern Europe. A year ago, reform in Poland was stagnating. No one could then have foreseen that by now Poland would have had its freest elections since the Communists came to power after the war; nor could anyone have foreseen that the result would be an impressive victory for Solidarity, which the Communist party—to its great credit—accepted. We all hope that the local elections, due in 18 months, will be fully free.
    Great changes are taking place in Hungary as well. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to a member of an opposition party winning a by-election: a small sign, but one of considerable significance. The reburial of Imre Nagy in June was also a potent symbol of change, and the Hungarian leadership's commitment to introducing a multi-party system is greatly to be welcomed. Hungary, too, now has its round table, and may well be the first eastern European country to hold fully democratic elections.
    These are historic steps forward. The post-war period has been a difficult and tragic time for eastern Europe, but we must be realistic. Even for the peoples of Poland and Hungary difficult times still lie ahead, but the crucial point is that they are increasingly in control of their destinies. They have real choices to make, and their decisions will have enormous significance, not only for them but—we hope—for the rest of eastern Europe. Let us also not forget the less fortunate nations whose Governments have yet to go down the path of reform and greater freedom, but there is pressure for change in all those countries, and in the end it must prevail.
    As has been said, the Council of Europe has an important role to play in this time of change. That was clearly recognised by the Committee of Ministers in the political declaration adopted on 5 May. I wish to refer particularly to the parts of the documents that concern relations with eastern European countries: they concentrate on the co-operation that can encourage greater openness and respect for human rights and contribute significantly to reform and democracy. It must be right, however, for the Council of Europe, in developing further links with the eastern Europeans, to follow the appropriate course for each country.
    We must take full account of the actual process of reform in those countries when agreeing new forms of co-operation. We must look for real achievements and not for empty rhetoric, and co-operation must aim to support the reform process. We endorse that aim, and will support increased co-operation where there is substantial work to be done.
    It is equally important to follow the guidelines set out in the political declaration. Each case must be judged on its merits; there is no virtue in pursuing contacts for their own
    1272
    sake. There can be no question of giving a Council of Europe "seal of approval" to countries that refuse to embrace proper reforms.
    As has been said, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has also played an important role in developing links between the Council and eastern Europe. On 11 May, the assembly unanimously approved a resolution which, as we have heard, set out special guest status in the assembly for certain east European assemblies. In June the assembly decided that Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia should be granted such status. Delegations from those countries were able to take their seats in the assembly for the visit of President Gorbachev in July.
    I understand that, as I think the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) suggested, special guest status will be comparable to the rights that delegations with observer status enjoy. Of course, only Israel currently has that status. As I understand it the delegations will be able to speak at the assembly with the prior approval of the committee concerned. I must echo the notes of caution sounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, who was rapporteur of the assembly's political affairs committee. He emphasised that the credentials of those legislative assemblies requesting such status should be strictly examined each year to ensure I hat they fulfil the conditions for participation.
    Of course we hope for further and wider ranging reforms in eastern Europe, but we must also be vigilant to ensure that there is no regression. It is not just in the European assembly that the eastern Europeans have shown an interest. Member states have agreed that both Hungary and Poland can accede to the European cultural convention. That is one of a number of Council of Europe conventions that are open to ratification by non-members, and the Soviet Union has likewise expressed interest. Other non-members may also pursue this line. We will, of course, have to consider all cases on their individual merits, and ratification must depend on the country's ability to meet fully all the requirements of the convention.
    There remains the question of closer association with—and possibly membership of—the Council of Europe, but this must depend upon a degree of democracy and a respect for human rights which is consistent with the Council's founding statute. Such conditions do not yet exist. There is a danger that an excess of enthusiasm might lead to the dilution of the Council's important basic principles, a cornerstone of which is the European convention on human rights. We look forward to the day when some of these countries can fulfil those obligations; and the sooner the better.
    Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), spoke about the development of links between the Western European Union and eastern bloc countries. Although the Council of Europe seems to be a more appropriate body than the WEU for increasing links with eastern Europe, the WEU assembly can play a useful role in talking to parliamentarians and to other opinion formers in the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries. It is good news that the assembly has already begun exchanges with the Supreme Soviet. I hope that these can be developed in future, and perhaps expanded to take in equivalent bodies in other such countries—notably, perhaps, Poland and Hungary.

    1273
    I have seen the assembly's report of 3 May this year on the development of East-West relations and western European security. Since the publication of the report, there have been a number of developments that the authors would surely welcome—notably the conclusion of a successful NATO summit at the end of May, which included agreement on a comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament. That document provides a coherent and imaginative basis for the development of the Alliance's role in both protecting security and improving East-West relations through arms control.
    There has also been the presentation on 13 July in Vienna of proposals by NATO for reducing the number of combat aircraft, helicopters and United States and Soviet military personnel. This followed the tabling of proposals in March on reductions in tanks, armoured troop carriers and artillery.
    All these developments illustrate the way in which the western Alliance, including the WEU members, are vigorously pursuing a reduction in conventional forces in Europe. The initiative lies firmly with the west, and we look to the eastern countries to respond constructively when the talks are resumed in Vienna in September. We shall, of course, continue to follow these events closely within the WEU in the run up to this autumn's ministerial council meeting.
    It remains the key aim of the WEU to promote the Alliance's cohesion and the maintenance of credible deterrent capability, with full United States and Canadian participation, at a time of rapid change in eastern Europe. It also remains a key aim to ensure that arms control will enhance stability as well as reduce force levels. Within that framework, I hope that the assembly will make its own very special contribution to increasing links between East and West.
    1274
    As I have said, the main focus for building links between East and West should be the Council of Europe. It was indeed appropriate that President Gorbachev should visit Strasbourg in the Council's 40th anniversary year. The Council of Europe is not just some comfortable club. It embodies our most fundamental values. Those values must not be compromised.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a good NATO ally, in a key strategic location, that fulfils all the criteria for membership—Turkey—has formally applied to join the WEU? In the Council, will my hon. Friend try to persuade his opposite numbers to listen favourably to Turkey's wish to accede in full to the Brussels treaty and join the WEU? That would be greatly to the benefit of the organisation.
    Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He will appreciate that I am new to these matters and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond fully to that point. I shall look carefully at what he has said.
    Adenauer, that great European statesman, subscribed to the two virtues of unity and freedom. He would have welcomed the changes in eastern Europe today, and the role that the Council and the WEU have played in them. He, too, would have counselled us today—as he did in his own lifetime—that freedom must come before unity; unity yes, but freedom first. Those who wholeheartedly adopt the values of the Council of Europe will welcome fellow inhabitants of the common European house.
    This has been a valuable opportunity to debate the merits of the Council of Europe. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I am well aware of the hard work that they do and of the distinguished contribution that the Council of Europe makes. I urge them to continue to pay it good attention. I assure all of them that the Government take extremely seriously what the Council of Europe does.

  North East Shipbuilders Limited
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Bob Clay: I am thankful for the opportunity to raise with the House what I and many of my hon. Friends regard as a major national scandal. It is not some regional, parochial matter or one that concerns simply an important national industry: it is a matter that in many ways exposes the most appalling incompetence, and concerns issues of great constitutional importance to the relationship between the Government and the European Commission.
  I shall start simply by stating what are by now irrefutable facts about the reality of what has happened. On the River Wear are the shipyards of North East Shipbuilclers Limited, regarded as technologically the most advanced in Europe. Many other shipbuilding nations consider them to be the most enviably advanced merchant shipbuilding yards. We have a highly skilled, superb work force, mainly either languishing on the dole or working on short-term contracts away from the town, their home and their families.
  Two organisations are willing, here and now, to purchase those shipyards. Both had clear signals earlier this year that the Government and British Shipbuilders were open to offers. Both have made it plain that they do not require any intervention fund subsidy on future contracts should they acquire the shipyards. Both have orders ready to place immediately in the yards. These are orders on their own account, as both are shipowners. We are not talking about orders from a third party. The ship-owners are prepared to place orders in the yards, if they secure the purchase of them, and it is now an undeniable fact, contrary to the Government's expectations last year, that the market for merchant shipbuilding is rapidly increasing throughout the world. The market for the categories and sizes of ship that the Wearside yards build is increasing even more speedily.
  It is ironic that we are hearing literally daily from ship-owners and ship brokers in Europe and other parts of the world of the increasing difficulties that they are having in placing contracts in any yards. The cutting continued for so long that Europe and many other parts of the world are moving towards serious under-capacity.
  We have superb yards, willing buyers, no requirement for public subsidy, a privatisation process that started at the instigation of the Government, two owners with massive financial resources and no one querying their ability financially to sustain the yards in any opening or teething period. How can it be that the yards remain closed and that the Government refuse to allow them to reopen?
  As the pathetic saga has unravelled, the Government have been forced to say that they got it wrong. They have done so in a mealy-mouthed way. They can no longer dispute, despite their persistent refusal to accept this earlier, that there is clear, statistically undeniable evidence of an upturn in orders. That vindicates the position that Opposition Members took last year, when we argued that, although we were opposed to privatisation in principle, if the Government wanted to persist with privatisation they should at least get the timing right. We argued throughout that an upturn in the market was coming and that it would be logical to privatise a yard that had orders and could take more orders rather than a yard that was facing
  1276
  difficulty with an existing order and had nothing else on the order book. How right we have been proved about that.
  There is plenty of evidence that the Government got it wrong last year about possible new ownership. Early last year the directors of North East Shipbuilders Limited drew up their own plans to rationalise the yard—it would have been a painful process—and to retract to an efficient one-site operation with one outfitting facility and one shipbuilding yard. The board of British Shipbuilders rejected the plan on the ground that it was too late to commence it because the Government had already begun the privatisation process. I ask the Minister to tell us whether the decision of British Shipbuilders to reject the proposal of NESL's directors was the result of Government instructions or advice.
  As last year unfolded, it became clear that another bizarre matter had been misunderstood and that the Government had got it wrong. A document was deposited in the Library by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security, which sets out the Government's record on some of the unfortunate matters to which I have referred. The document sets out the Government's account of how it all happened.
  At the end of the second page, and as part of the explanation of why the Government were in such a rush to privatise NESL, there appears the following sentence:
  "This applied especially to any bidder interested in the possible series of orders from the Cuban shipping company Mambisa."
  What was meant by "this applied"? Intervention fund support was likely to be reduced after 31 December 1988. It was therefore important, we are now told, in the Government's view to have a prospective purchaser in place by that date so as not to lose a little intervention fund support on the Cuban order. It is extraordinary for the Government now to say that the urgency of securing that Cuban order was a critical factor in the timing of privatisation—particularly since, only months before, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) told the House repeatedly that the Cuban order did not exist. That is something else that the Government got wrong.
  The Government also said that there were no serious bidders for NESL last year, yet they now say that one should not be suspicious about the way in which the West German bidder, Egon Oldendorff, came into the picture this year, when it was around as a serious bidder all last year. How can the Government say, on the one hand, that last year there were no serious bidders, and, on the other, that a bidder now regarded as fairly serious was around last year too?
  The document placed in the Library by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), to which I referred earlier, makes mention of the Government's belief, in respect of bids made this year, that
  "Against the experience of the previous autumn, shipbuilding proposals seemed unlikely."
  In other words, the Government restated their view that after last year's experience, it seemed unlikely that shipbuilding proposals would emerge during the stay of execution in the first six months of this year. The Government were wrong again. There were two substantial bids. That might explain why, when the

  1277
  Government were confronted by not one but two serious bids, they found themselves in a state of shock and did nothing for a considerable length of time.
  It is extraordinary that the Government should state in a document deposited in the Library that they did not expect any serious shipbuilding proposals this year, when the chairman of British Shipbuilders, Mr. John Lister, repeatedly expressed the view last year that a probable outcome of the whole sorry scenario would be that serious bidders would wait until the yards' closure was announced before moving in to buy—in the mistaken belief that they would be able to obtain their assets more cheaply and easily. How wrong the Government were. Nevertheless, that view was persistently, if not publicly, expressed. The Government must have been well aware of that view of the chairman of British Shipbuilders, so it is extraordinary that they should now plead that they never expected any such thing to happen.
  The Government's most serious error was their understanding of the European Commission's attitude in the event of a renotification by the Government of the reopening of one yard, or both yards, in the light of a serious bidder coming forward. How did the Government get all that wrong? I shall briefly run through some of the key dates this year. Bids were not made suddenly in June or July this year. At the end of January, the Anglo-Greek bidders wrote to British Shipbuilders expressing interest in shipbuilding in Sunderland and asking to visit the yards immediately. On 22 February, the Anglo-Greek bidders met British Shipbuilders and announced that they wanted to buy the yards. On 9 March, they wrote again, referring to the meeting of 22 February. On 6 April, after wondering what else they had to do, the Anglo-Greek bidders made a formal offer, subject to contract.
  According to a written answer I received from the Minister today, on 13 April the West German bidder expressed interest too. Finally, on 10 April a senior civil servant spoke to a senior official of the European Commission. The document in the Library states clearly that the difficulties that have now arisen over British Shipbuilders' commercial borrowing were not mentioned in the 10 April discussion. The document also reveals that, on 11 April, bidders were informed of difficulties that might arise with the European Commission.
  There are two different versions of that development. Certainly bidders were informed that, if they wanted to continue receiving intervention fund subsidy, there would be problems with the European Commission. But at least one of the bidders believes that it was informed that if it did not want intervention fund subsidy there should not be a major difficulty. It is not just one of the bidders who believes that to be the case, but British Shipbuilders, which was selling the yards. It also takes the view that it was only much later in late June that it was made clear that even a non-intervention funded bid could produce considerable difficulties.
  It is interesting that, after the first formal discussion between the Government and the Commission, a discussion that should have taken place much earlier, advice to bidders about difficulties that could arise with the European Commission was never even put in writing. A written answer that I received today confirms that that advice was only given orally. What an extraordinary way
  1278
  for the Department of Trade and Industry to behave. But how convenient that it was only given orally, because now we can only take one or the other side's word for it and we shall never know precisely what advice was given, as there is no written documentary proof of it.
  On 17 April, the Anglo-Greek bidders, in response to whatever advice they were given, put in a further offer making it clear that they did not want any subsidy. On 3 May the West German bidder did the same. Even on 7 June, when the right hon. Member for Braintree gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, there were only the slightest hints, if one really read between the lines, that a serious difficulty would arise with the Commission from a non-intervention funded bid.
  Finally, on 27 June, the right hon. Member for Braintree met Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner responsible for competition, and discovered that it was alleged that the Commission would reopen the whole question of what happened last December and would, if the British Government renotified it of a reopening of the yard, place in the way serious obstacles that would effectively make it commercially impossible for anyone to take on the yards.
  We are not talking about an act of God. This was not due to the weather. I am not particularly interested in whether responsibility lies 100 per cent. with the EC, 100 per cent. with the British Government, 50:50 between the two or any proportion that anyone likes to devise. It lies 100 per cent. in some proportion between the two—no one else.
  It is extraordinary that people were told that the Government were open to offers, that they received offers and that weeks and months went by. This is a serious case of commercial misrepresentation. If people are told that it is possible for them to buy something and if they then come forward and meet all the commercial requirements only to be told that a sale was not possible in the first place, that is commercial misrepresentation. It is about time that we stopped the pathetic business of the European Commission saying that the Government should have known all along and the Government saying that the European Commission never told them and that they did not know what to ask anyway. One or both of them should own up. If the Commission is right now, the Government must have been wrong then, or vice versa.
  The crucial matter is that of unsubsidised bids. On 8 February the hon. Member for Braintree wrote to me. His words are clear and they have been quoted before. He talked about the difficulties that would arise if bidders wanted intervention funding, and he said:
  "My comments are of course related to the issue of subsidised shipbuilding. Should anyone wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities for shipbuilding without any form of assistance, that would entail only the negotiation with BS of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question."
  We now have the pathetic spectacle of Ministers and civil servants scurrying around trying to work out how to explain that. We are being told that subsidy in that case did not necessarily just mean the intervention fund; it meant the strange mechanism whereby, if the yard reopened, British Shipbuilders' past losses, accepted by the Commission last December, could be regarded as triggering off commercial debts that would be imposed on a new owner of the yard. If that is the case, it would have been impossible to sell the yards in the first place. If the Government are saying that what they meant by "subsidy"

  1279
  in February was that a new buyer would inherit £90 million worth of commercial risk with the yard, the yards were unsaleable, and bidders should have been told that. In that case, the letter should have been rewritten as follows: "My comments are, of course, related to impossible shipbuilding. Should anyone wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities by invoking a miracle, that would entail only the negotiation with British Shipbuilders of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question." It is nonsense.
  The commercial misrepresentation went back long before this year. In a sense, if what the Commission is now saying is correct, it was never possible to sell the yards. We are told that British Shipbuilders' losses were so great that its accounts and the subsidy that had already gone in until the end of last year were so far in breach of the sixth directive that something had to close. Let us put it this way. If the Government had gone to the Commission in December and said, "We have a buyer for the Appledore yard in Devon, we have a buyer for the Ferguson yard on the Clyde, a buyer for the Clark Kincaid engine works and also a buyer for Sunderland"—much bigger than the rest of the operations put together—what would the Commission have said? Would it have said, "That's okay; fine; get on with it," in which case the logic must be that the Commission cannot object to Sunderland reopening now? The Commission's objection to Sunderland reopening now must surely mean that it was going to insist on a pretty substantial closure of some kind last December.
  The Government must have known that all along. They could have done the correct thing and refused to accept that the Commission had a right to close British shipyards. If they did not want to do that, they could at least have done the honest thing politically and said, "We accept the Commission's rights to impose closures on us. We shall now choose which yards to close and which of the remainder to put up for sale." Instead, they put the whole lot up for sale, knowing that they could not sell all the yards. That was commercial misrepresentation as well.
  The Government nearly got away with it. What went wrong was this: the hidden agenda last year was to close Sunderland because it had no orders. Then something very embarrassing happens. One of the world's biggest shipping lines, Mambisa of Cuba, wanted to place what would then have been the biggest merchant order in the world with Sunderland, because it thought that Sunderland was a very good shipyard from which it had had many good ships in the past. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pretended that the Cubans were not there; he pretended that they wanted unreasonable terms; he pretended this and pretended that, but the Cubans just would not go away. It was extremely embarrassing and it prolonged the whole business.
  Let me get back to what is happening now. The Government's failure to allow the reopening of the yard revolves around the attitude of the European Commission—that, at least, is the excuse that they are using. But in addition to the European Commission, we have a European Parliament made up of elected representatives. A deputation from Sunderland, which included me, went over to Strasbourg a couple of days ago, and there is now a resolution before the European Parliament, which was laid by Alan Donnelly, MEP for Tyne and Wear. It
  "Calls on the Commission to withdraw any contemplated actions that deter the Government of the United Kingdom
  1280
  from proceeding with a sale of Sunderland shipyards to buyers who wish to utilise these facilities for shipbuilding purposes and who do not require Intervention Fund support on future contracts."
  That resolution has been presented to Henrique Baron Crespo, the new President of the European Parliament, who has said to me and to others in the deputation that he hopes that the resolution will receive sympathetic and serious attention from the Parliament. I am sure that it will, and, moreover, it is a Parliament which is looking to assert more authority vis-à-vis the unelected Commission.
  Perhaps the British Government will say that the European Parliament is a meaningless and irrelevant institution and a waste of time and money. Unless they say that, they must accept in logic that if the European Parliament passes the resolution after due process, the European Commission may take some note of it. If the European Commission takes notice, the obstacle which, according to the Government is the only thing standing in the way of the reopening of the yards, has been removed. I hope that the Government can give us an assurance tonight that, as long as the European Parliament is considering the matter, they will do nothing to break up the assets or even sell the assets of the yards to anyone other than a shipbuilder until the European Parliament has had the opportunity to express its view to the Commission.
  Furthermore, when I refer to the Commission, it is clear that the Commission is not embodied solely in Sir Leon Brittan. We were told over the past two days that at least one other Commissioner seriously questions Sir Leon Brittan's judgment in relating the Sunderland enterprise zone to a renotification of reopening the shipyards.
  Whatever Sir Leon Brittan may propose to the rest of the Commission, he will need nine votes to get his proposal through—if it goes to a vote. The Government should bear that in mind, because they have been far too ready to accept that as one Commissioner, who may be the lead Commissioner in the matter, is apparently presenting obstacles that is a good enough excuse for them to throw up their hands and say, "We can do nothing more about this."
  The Government have got away with this extraordinary situation because it revolves around historic incidents and very technical European directives about an industry which, although it is important, is sadly regarded as rather regional. It is not a clapped-out sunset industry, it is a high-technology sunrise industry and the country will rue the day that it loses the industry. Nevertheless, the issues are historical, technical and complicated. They are woven with incompetence and deceit. Sadly, the national media in this country have for some reason not grasped what is happening.
  Therefore, I must provide a metaphor to explain the sheer scale of the scandal and lunacy: a patient lies in a bed. He does not have an incurable illness or disease. However, he is profoundly sick and on a life-support machine. Misdiagnosing hunger as a duodenal ulcer, the surgeon operates and cuts out the appendix by mistake. One inappropriate drug regime after another has produced more and more catastrophic side effects.
  It transpires that the doctors have been reading the wrong text books which, in any case, were in a foreign language that they did not really understand. So obsessed are they with their absurd remedial measures that they will sacrifice the patient to test the cure.

  1281
  The chief nurse is frequently drunk. Most of the competent medical staff have fled the asylum for early retirement or other jobs. The hospital manager—or the manager up until a few days ago—is a decent well-meaning soul who has developed quite an attachment to the patient. From time to time, he intervenes to stop the final fatality occurring. Unfortunately, he has little idea of the reality of the hospital's extraordinary environment beyond his own office door, other than an occasional embarrassed visit to the sick room. Even when he begins to suspect that something has gone profoundly wrong, he cannot face the consequences, let along decide how to put matters right.
  The hospital manager's secretary really runs the show. He is an extremely clever man, but is showing some signs of schizophrenia. So carried away has he become with demonstrating his administrative genius that he often forgets that the purpose of it all is to return patients to health.
  The hospital room has become a nightmare. The patient's family sends for a second opinion. Having overcome the hospital's misdirections about its location, and after, on several occasions, being asked to come back next week, the new doctor eventually examines the patient. "Basically," the doctor says, "the patient should be fed rather than starved. Stop the drugs and try some exercise. I will take the patient away and I am pretty sure that I can effect a cure. I will nurture the patient and give him a new life. I will charge no fee for this responsibility and I will ask for no support in future. Indeed, I will pay you generously if you will allow me to take your patient away and care for him." "Sorry," says the hospital, "It is against our rules unless we switch off the life support machine."
  1282
  Towards the end of the sorry saga, the patient's constituency Member of Parliament is increasingly asked why he does not just let the poor old thing die in peace. Few seem to understand his outrage at such a question.
  To end the medical metaphor, if, in medical terms, this crazed and macabre farce finally leads to the murderous outcome that I have described, eventually all those responsible will go to trial. Some might get away with more than others, but they will all be barred from medical parctice for life—they will be struck off. Eventually, the political equivalent will catch up with those responsible for the wanton and unnecessary destruction of jobs in Sunderland and 600 years of proud shipbuilding history.
  Even tonight it is not too late. There is a new Secretary of State and a new Minister dealing with shipbuilding. They should take a deep breath and think again. If they must continue their obsession with the European Commission's interpretation and their interpretation of the rules, they should go back to the European Commission and say, "It is nonsense that a directive which, rightly or wrongly, was designed to reduce subsidy in European shipbuilding is now being used to eliminate the one yard that is going to have a go at shipbuilding without subsidy—a contradiction in terms."
  They should say, "We are renotifying you that we have accepted one of these bidders. We are going ahead and we are prepared to negotiate the consequences, but we are not prepared to have the absurd situation in which one of the best shipyards in the world, with a willing and skilled work force looking for jobs, and with ships waiting to be built when the world is booming with orders, is allowed finally to close." The Government really must think again.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has made an impressive, detailed and damning case. I hope that the Minister will address the serious charges that he made. I look forward to the day when the Select Committee gets its teeth into this matter, because it will not go away. The Minister has been in his present office only a few days, but the matter will be in his in-tray and those of his masters for some time yet.
  I regret that the recent reshuffle means that the Ministers who presided over the closure of NESL and the disastrous events of the past 12 months are not here to account for their stewardship. All that we can hope for tonight—it is no criticism of the Minister—is a mechanical recital of a brief and as much bluster and synthetic indignation as the Minister can muster—having seen the Minister on previous occasions in his Home Office days, we know that that is quite a lot.
  One of the problems in engaging in a rational dialogue on the fate of our shipbuilding industry is the frequency with which those responsible for the shipbuilding industry change. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North will have a better idea than I of the exact count, but there have been more Ministers responsible for shipbuilding than coups in Bolivia.
  Many people in Sunderland feel betrayed by what has happened in the past 12 months or so. My hon. Friend has documented what has happened. My role tonight is merely to underline some of the points that he made and to draw attention to one or two other aspects.
  One of the consistent themes in what has happened to our shipyards in Sunderland is the constant moving of the goalposts. When privatising industries, it is customary to fatten them up first to make them attractive to potential investors. It is unusual for an enterprise to be put on the market when its fortunes are lowest and when it is liable to be least attractive to potential investors. Yet that was the moment when the Department of Trade and Industry chose to privatise NESL. Just at the moment—it seemed to be disastrous at the time—when the Danish ferries order fell through, the Department saw the opportunity to close NESL once and for all.
  It reckoned without a number of factors. First of all, it saw no orders. People in Sunderland are not daft; they are quite realistic—if there are no ships to be built, there cannot be shipyards. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, there was a potential Cuban order worth £110 million. The Department of Trade and Industry declined to take that order seriously, I was present, along with my hon. Friend and others, at a meeting at the DTI when the then Secretary of State—which is two Secretaries of State ago—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), admitted that he had not taken the Cuban order seriously, although he now did. That was one rare piece of frankness in this sorry saga. In about June of last year—some time before my hon. Friend had raised the matter—the Cuban order was at last being taken seriously.
  A new problem then arose—there were no buyers for the yard. We had a yard and an order, but we did not have any buyers. Many of us took the view, which was shared by Lloyd's List, that the decent thing to do would be to go
  1284
  for the order, and any other orders that were available, and worry about finding a buyer afterwards. However, that was not what happened.
  In December last year, we were told by the newest Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), that there were no suitable buyers, so the yard would have to close. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, decent enough to say that he would do his best to keep the assets intact, in the hope that some use could be made of them in the near future. What I suspect he did not expect was that not one but two potential buyers would shortly emerge. As my hon.Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has said, it was a situation that the Department failed entirely to predict and, even when it was staring it in the face, it took some time to wake up to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North quoted the letter to him of 8 February, in which we were told that, while there would be a problem, because of the closure in December, with anyone wishing to undertake subsidised shipbuilding—God knows there is no shipyard in the western world, even now, that does not enjoy some degree of subsidy——
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Anywhere in the whole world.
  Mr. Mullin: Yes, anywhere in the whole world, as my hon. Friend said.
  We were told, however, that there would be no problem should buyers come forward who were prepared to buy the yard without subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, quoted the precise passage from a letter, which I think bears quoting again. I hope that the Minister will deal with it, because no one from the Government has dealt with it so far. It said:
  "Should anyone wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities for shipbuilding without any form of assistance, that would entail only the negotiation with British Shipbuilders of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question."
  We cannot have it clearer than that.
  According to the document deposited in the Library, on 17 April the first of the two potential buyers, the Anglo-Greek interest, told the Ministry that it would require no subsidy. So from 17 April, the DTI had one buyer, who was not after any subsidy. By 3 May it had two—the Olendorf company had also come forward as a buyer and it, too, did not require a subsidy. There was no greater evidence of the shipyard's viability, because those were commercial interests—they were not charities. They were not doing it for their love for North East Shipbuilders or necessarily the people of Sunderland. They would be the first to admit that they were doing it for commercial interests.
  Therefore, by 17 April and 3 May, those hard-headed commercial interests thought that it was possible to build unsubsidised ships in North East Shipbuilders. Such had been the strengthening of the market and the rise in shipbuilding prices around the world, that it was rightly predicted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, and others with an interest in these matters, that unsubsidised shipbuilding would be possible.
  At that time, the goalposts were moved again. There was talk of a threat to the enterprise zone that the Minister had announced in December and of the new owners inheriting British Shipbuilders' debts of £90 million. It is

  1285
  hard to believe that those threats were serious, because no one purchasing a new enterprise for between £7 million or £9 million would contemplate taking on debts of £90 million. They would have said, a long time before that, "We are not interested, good night." The potential purchasers did not say that, the goalposts were moved again and everything was done to discourage them, no doubt in the hope that they would go away. However, they persisted, which was a tribute to the strength of the market and to the changes that had occurred in it over the previous six or 12 months.
  We were told, finally, that the European Commission would not accept the deal. We were further told that the Minister was not aware of that possibility until he visited Sir Leon Brittan on 27 June, but I do not accept that. A copy of Sir Leon's letter dated 12 July has now been placed in the Library. Presumably, it is the most authoritative statement of the Commission's view, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, he is only one Commissioner and if there were a vote there is a possibility that he would be out-voted.
  Although Sir Leon's letter is not very helpful, it does not mention an outright objection to the sale of the yards, nor does it say that the enterprise zone would have to go. It merely talks of a "reappraisal", and not of cutting off aid altogether but of reducing it.
  There is good reason to believe that the use of the Commission as an alibi was exaggerated and that if there had been the political will there would have been no difficulty in finding a way to reopen the yards as commercial enterprises.
  If Ministers set out to sink what remained of our merchant shipbuilding capacity, they could not have done better. Who needs foreign competition when we have the Department of Trade and Industry?
  The Department of Trade and Industry grossly under-estimated the revival of the market. A cynical interpretation of the letter dated 8 February, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, would be that it never dawned on Ministers when they undertook to keep assets intact until 30 June that there would be any takers. If that interpretation is correct, it suggests that they were woefully misinformed and ill-advised.
  The Department of Trade and Industry and all concerned grossly under-estimated the strength of feeling in Sunderland. The industry did not begin 30 or 40 years ago; it has deep roots in the culture of Sunderland. For 600 years, ships had been built on the Wear, and people not much older than me can recall when one could not walk in the main streets of Sunderland without hearing the sound of hammers on rivets coming from the shipyards that lined its banks. Generations of people in Sunderland owe their livelihoods to the shipyards. They are deeply proud of the yards, and for good reason. There was a time, within the living memory of most people, when the yards accounted for more than half the world's merchant shipping output.
  Not least of the Department's mistakes was to under-estimate the strength of feeling in Sunderland. The whole town has been united in our campaign to save the yards. All political parties on the borough council have lent their voices to this, as has the chamber of commerce, and the local newspaper, which gives donations to the
  1286
  Conservative party, has been unstinting in its support. Above all, the work force has united under shop stewards who command greater respect than any I have come across. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in the magnificent campaign, which is far from over, to save our shipyards.
  For some time, the Department has been perpetrating a cruel hoax not only on the people of Sunderland and the workers in the shipyards but on the commercial interests that seek to buy them. It pretended to solicit bids, when in reality it discouraged bids. I can conclude from his letter of 8 February only that the Minister was unaware of the sixth directive and did not become aware of it until the end of June when he visited Sir Leon Brittan. I do not want to be too hard on the previous Minister of Trade and Industry. All of us acknowledge that he is on the merciful wing of his party and inherited decisions made by others. I recognise his genuine concern for the fate of Sunderland. Perhaps that was what led him to preside over the present mess.
  The circumstances of North-East Shipbuilders Limited has implications for the country. As an island nation, we depend on shipping, yet we lack the capacity to build our merchant ships. Once we had the biggest fleet in the world, but now our erstwhile shipping capacity is under foreign flags and crewed from the poorest nations. It has implications for the defence of our country. Only the other day, the Select Committee on Defence drew attention to the shortage of merchant shipping available in time of war.
  Above all, it has implications for all those interested in the malign effect of the EC on the British economy. It may come as news to many that the EC cannot merely veto subsidies, but can veto a commercial arrangement that requires no subsidy. This saga illustrates our enormous loss of sovereignty to the EC over the past few years. Many wonder whether Germany or France would tolerate such interference and suspect that, if the market revived soon to allow a German yard to reopen, we would hear no more about the sixth directive.
  Mr. Clay: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sir Robert Atkinson wrote to me and said that the French act first and argue afterwards? Does he agree that that is interesting, coming from somebody with direct experience as a former chairman of British Shipbuilders?
  Mr. Mullin: We could learn a great deal from the French and Germans. At the end of the day, our problem is not in Europe but in a lack of political will in Whitehall and Westminster.
  There is one other aspect of EC policy I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. Renaval is the programme of aid that the EC operates for various regions that have been badly hit by closures of merchant shipbuilding yards. I understand that no application for such aid has been made on behalf of Sunderland, although the Government have applied for aid for Plymouth, Strathclyde and, unbelievably, Gibraltar, which are much less hard hit than Sunderland.
  Last week, I and others had a meeting with the Commissioner responsible for regional development, who confirmed that no application had been made and expressed surprise at that. He was confident that if one were made, it would be favourably considered. On 10 July, the leader of Sunderland borough council, Councillor Charles Slater, wrote to the then Chancellor saying:

  1287
  "I would be furious if my officers had neglected such obvious issues as those now confronting you in any negotiations undertaken on the Council's behalf."
  He was referring to Renaval. The letter continued:
  "I assume that you are equally displeased with your officials and that they have been instructed to resolve matters as quickly as possible, and to Sunderland's advantage."
  I checked yesterday with the office of the leader of the borough council and, as of yesterday, he had not received a reply to that letter. I hope the Minister will tonight assure the House that an application is under way.
  Mr. Clay: The Government have been telling us for months that nobody wants to risk the aid that is going to Sunderland for remedial measures by reopening the shipyards. In other words, Sunderland needs the aid so much that we should be prepared to keep the shipyards closed, rather than risk losing the aid package. At the same time, it seems that the Government are refusing to apply for another aid package, the Renaval aid, which would do just as well as the aid being given for closing the shipyards. That shows the hypocrisy of it all.
  Mr. Mullin: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government cannot have it both ways. Given that there has been a massive loss of jobs in Sunderland, it is clear that, if part of the shipbuilding industry there were to be revived, it would not be incompatible to obtain Renaval aid for areas which are not revived. It is time that those responsible got their skates on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North began by saying that we in Sunderland have one of the most modern yards in Europe and that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money had been invested in it. We have a skilled work force, there is a rising world market and the sixth directive—the alibi given for the closure of the yard—is due to be renegotiated in 18 months' time, no doubt taking into account changes in the world market. There is, in addition, a strong possibility—as my hon. Friend discovered on his recent trip to Strasbourg—that the EC is prepared to reconsider the issue.
  It would be an act of gross vandalism to destroy those yards now. We want an assurance from the Minister that while any possibility remains—and it seems that a large one remains—of a future for those yards building ships, which is what they were built for, they will be kept intact. At least until the European Parliament has had an opportunity to see if it stands by the claims that have been made for its position on this matter. We in Sunderland do not want to see those yards destroyed if there is any hope of them being retained, and we believe there are considerable grounds for hope in view of the dramatic revival in the world market. We seek an assurance from the Minister to that effect.
  A friend of mine who has worked in the yards in Sunderland all his working life told me recently that he had been offered a job in a shipyard in north Germany. He said, "Shipbuilding in Sunderland is not dead. Sunderland workers will still be building ships, but they will be building them in German yards." I cannot think of a sadder epitaph for the Government's policy or for merchant shipbuilding in this country than that they have turned the proud shipyard workers of Sunderland into a race of guest workers in the yards of our competitors. That is a sad state of affairs.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on initiating this debate, on his excellent contribution and on the role that he has played, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in campaigning to retain shipbuilding in the north-east and to retain a merchant shipbuilding capacity in Sunderland. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has shown nothing else today he has shown that when he eventually retires after a long period of service in the House he would make an excellent ombudsman for the National Health Service. No doubt a future Labour Government will bear that in mind.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on his appointment as Minister of State. I hope that he is given a little more leeway by his boss than was given to his predecessor. The fact that he represents a particular town in the midlands may give him the influence that some of his hon. Friends enjoy. He will probably say that it does not, because he has not exactly been bequeathed the most enviable of tasks by his predecessors at the Department of Trade and Industry.
  As for the relationship between the Government and the European Commission on trade and industry matters, I am not sure whether we can expect to see the pattern that was established in the past recurring in the future. We have been told this week that there will be no change of policy. I am not sure whether that was the Prime Minister or Bernard Ingham speaking. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the Cabinet's view of the relationship between the interests of this country and the way in which those interests are dealt with in Europe. The history of the DTI and of British Shipbuilders' involvement in this whole business is one of complacent incompetence.
  My hon. Friends have raised several questions and in the short time available to me I shall summarise three or four of their main questions. First, why were the terms of any sale not clarified by the Department after it announced that offers could be considered on 17 January? I have a little experience of negotiations and it has always struck me that the first thing to do when entering a negotiation is to examine the ground rules, consider how they might change and decide what options might be available later. From the evidence that we have heard in the debate about this whole saga, it does not seem as though anything of that nature was undertaken by the Department. Indeed, in the letter sent by the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North on 23 January this year, there was absolutely no acknowledgement or identification of the problems that could arise in the future.
  Secondly, after the Commission said that intervention fund money would not be available in response to the issues raised by the Department in April after a bid was received on, I believe, 6 April, why did the Department not then seek to clarify whether any other conditions would apply? We are told that the Department was told that the rules of the game had changed and that intervention fund money would be available, but surely it is a basic tenet of negotiating that one should then seek to clarify whether any other matters would be laid down as the conditions in which aid might apply.
  Thirdly, after the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was told by Sir Leon Brittan on 27 June about

  1289
  the problems which existed in relation to any bid, did any further negotiations take place with the Commission between that date and 13 July, when a further statement was made to the House? If negotiations took place, what was their nature and what conditions were suggested by the Government in response to the talks on 27 June?
  I do not want to elaborate too much, but the fourth question that must be answered is why British Shipbuilders did not seek to give the Government advice on the difficulties of interpretation which might arise in regard to the sixth directive. British Shipbuilders has someone permanently based in Brussels who is supposed to keep the industry briefed on a day-to-day basis about the things that happen there. British Shipbuilders must surely have been aware of some of the difficulties which might lie ahead—or if not, why not?
  Only two interpretations are possible at this late date. Either the Government welcomed the Commission's veto or they have been given the runaround for the past year and have accepted in a docile fashion an edict by officials in Brussels which would never have been acceptable to the Italians, the Germans or the French. Can anyone imagine an Italian or German shipyard, which had been closed but was given the possibility of reopening, being treated in this manner? Can anyone imagine the German, French or Italian Government giving in to the Commission as the British Government seem to have given in on this issue? Can anyone imagine the Germans or French not clearing the ground early so that they knew the conditions which might apply and could therefore give the issues the widest consideration?
  The Minister has a difficult task today. He inherits a grave situation. I ask him to forget the past, to start again, to look to the future and, even at this late stage, to reopen negotiations with Brussels to seek a new package. If he does not do that, he will face another question—what happens to the yards?
  If there is no attempt to reopen negotiations, and no satisfactory conclusions to such negotiations, the only conclusion that I and the people of Sunderland can draw is that their yards, their inheritance, their history, their traditions, their skills and their expertise are being thrown to rust and decay in the cold north-east winter winds. I assure the Minister that although I represent a Newcastle constituency, I occasionally visit Roker park. The winds there bite the football ground and they bite the shipyards that are left to decay. Surely it would be better to reopen negotiations and, while they are going on, keep the yards intact in the hope that, with the widely acknowledged upturn in world shipping, there will some day be another option for the people of Sunderland which will allow shipbuilding to take place.
  I have this evening asked the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to examine the circumstances in which the Government failed to take the opportunity to dispose of a public asset in a way that would have given hope to a great industrial town and raised public funds. I have also written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry asking whether he can examine the implications of the closure of North East Shipbuilders Limited for the maintenace of a merchant shipbuilding industry in Britain. That Committee has twice discussed shipbuilding and NESL. Twice it has received submissions
  1290
  from Ministers and twice, I believe, it has not been told the whole truth. I hope that the Minister will join me and willingly make himself available, with his civil servants, so that the Select Committee can get to the bottom of the matter.
  Rather than damning reports from those Committees, which I think very likely, I should much prefer the Minister to re-establish a proper and effective working relationship with his old friend, Sir Leon Brittan, with whom he had a close relationship, and to reopen negotiations in Brussels on this sorry affair.
  11.8 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The future of Sunderland, particularly of North East Shipbuilders, is serious and important.
  I am grateful to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for raising this matter, as it gives me an opportunity to explore some of the relevant considerations. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his kind welcome. This is the first time that we have had the great pleasure of debating one against the other.
  This is my first venture in the House as Minister with responsibility for industry and enterprise, and I am glad that it should coincide with a debate on the future of industry and enterprise in a town with strong manufacturing traditions and traditions which are deeply rooted in engineering.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will forgive me if I say that I do not accept his criticisms of my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. No one was more anxious than he to bring prosperity to Sunderland, and his commitment to that task was well known. On his behalf, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South for being good enough to pay tribute to him.
  At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend had to focus on the future of the shipbuilding yards. His predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Health, had promised that if there was no successful bid for NESL a suitable package of measures would be introduced to allow the town a new future. Bids had been invited by the end of September, and I know that—having examined the advice from British Shipbuilders on those bids—my right hon. Friend was impressed by the advantages of retaining shipbuilding, if that were possible.
  A number of factors had to be taken into account, and my right hon. Friend took them into account. Sunderland, as I have said, had a strong tradition in the industry, and there was much inherent skill in the town. However, my right hon. Friend had to be conscious that only bids that were capable of providing a viable future for the industry should be seriously considered. He had also to be conscious—as indeed he was—that, even had such a viable bid been made, there would in all probability have been a substantial fall in employment.
  My right hon. Friend also had to consider the positive advantages of creating enterprise zones. He was very conscious of what had been achieved at Consett, Corby, Scunthorpe and elsewhere. That argument was fortified by points made by, for example, my hon. Friends the

  1291
  Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on the occasion of his statement on 13 July.
  I think that the House will acknowledge that my right hon. Friend took immense trouble to find a shipbuilding solution for NESL, and that it was only with the greatest regret and after examining all the relevant factors that he announced, on 7 December, the decision to close the yards. He announced that decision in conjunction with a range of positive measures designed to ameliorate the position that he knew would ensue. Prominent among those measures was the creation of an enterprise zone of some 150 acres for Sunderland.
  My right hon. Friend announced a variety of other measures: for example, £10·5 million was to be provided through British Shiphuilders, of which £5 million was designed specifically to help the work force with, for instance, retraining and job replacement, while another £5 million was intended to promote enterprise within the borough of Sunderland. Another element in the package was the provision of advanced factories worth some £7 million through the agency of the English Industrial Estates Corporation.
  Both Sunderland Members will acknowledge that the position has improved, contrary to their fears when the closure decision was announced. I understand that, although about 2,000 men were made redundant as a consequence of that decision, 1,100 or so have now found some form of permanent employment. Opposition Members shake their heads. I can only act on advice and no doubt the matter will be further examined. I have given my understanding of the present position.
  I should now like to speak about developments between last December and today. The hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South have understandably focused on these matters. I cannot give a complete account of what occurred, but shall touch on only one or two matters that seem of special interest. In that respect the two hon. Members who represent Sunderland adopted a similar approach. In a debate on 14 December 1988, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made it clear to the House that it was possible in principle to renotify the Commission with proposals about shipbuilding at NESL.
  My right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that he was not willing to put at risk the remedial arrangement that he had already announced for Sunderland, nor was he prepared to put at risk the disposal of the smaller British Shiphuilders facilities. The European Commission decided on 21 December not to raise objection to a package notification for British Shipbuilders which included details of the terms of disposal of some of its smaller facilities together with the corporation's forecasts for 1988 and 1989, proposals for the closure of North East Shipbuilders and the £10·5 million element in the remedial package that I have outlined.
  On 22 December the Government notified their intention to introduce the enterprise zone in Sunderland. On 17 January, at a meeting in Sunderland with the "Save our Shipyards" campaign, at which I suspect one or other or both hon. Members for Sunderland were present, the former Chancellor of the Duchy made it clear that he was prepared for the NESL yards to remain in being at least until 30 June to allow for any new interest that could use the existing investment to make proposals to British Shipbuilders.
  1292
  Against the experience of the previous autumn, shipbuilding proposals seemed unlikely. More likely were proposals for repair and conversion.
  The next significant event was that the Commission formally cleared the enterprise zone for Sunderland. I understand that that occurred on 2 March.
  Mr. Mullin: In his rundown the Minister seems to have passed 8 February, the date of the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North and I referred. Perhaps the Minister will come to that in a moment, but there must be some explanation of the remarkable statement in that letter.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South seems to have forgotten the explanation that has been given. He will recall that precisely that question was put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy during his statement on 13 July. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at column 1151 of Hansard of that date he will see my right hon. Friend's reply. I could not do better than repeat that answer, but as it is already in the Official Report I do not propose to trouble the House further about it.
  A first offer was received on 6 April and this was later amended on 17 April to exclude the requirement for intervention fund support. This followed a meeting between Department of Trade and Industry officials and Commission officials about the difficulties likely to be encountered in any renotification of shipbuilding proposals for NESL.
  Both the shipbuilding interests which sustained their bids were advised that an offer requiring intervention fund assistance or the equivalent was bound to result in the Commission consulting other member states in a "procedure". They were also warned of potentially serious difficulties even if funding was not required, but prospects could be improved only if bids were without such assistance and there was some lasting reduction in capacity in the yards.
  On 3 May, British Shipbuilders received a second serious offer from a shipbuilding interest, which was also confirmed as being without intervention fund support. Both these bids required further clarification and proof. In addition, two non-shipbuilding bids were confirmed on 26 May and 6 June respectively. In these circumstances, and recognising that the Commission could be expected to give a clear opinion only on the basis of a full appreciation of the plans of the two shipbuilding interests, the Government thought it right to take stock of the position as a whole, and to define the framework within which decisions could be taken.
  The House will also recall that my right hon. Friend gave a written answer on 7 June this year setting out how the Government intended to proceed. He said that he had asked British Shipbuilders to give advice about each of the bids by 30 June and that the Government would 'take decisions in the light of a number of factors. Among these, the position under the sixth directive was only one. Meanwhile, preparations for the enterprise zone and other remedial measures in Sunderland were put on ice.
  Following final clarification meetings between British Shipbuilders and the bidders, which gave him a full picture of what was likely to be proposed, my right hon. Friend visited the responsible Commissioner in Brussels on 27 June. The responsible Commissioner was Sir Leon Brittan, whom I had the privilege to serve as parliamentary private

  1293
  secretary. He made it plain that if shipbuilding were to be continued at NESL the Commission would feel it necessary to open a procedure under article 93(2) because, in his view, the commitment implied by the Commission's acceptance of the notification of the closure of the yards was a commitment to keep them physically closed for at least five years, and that that commitment would have been called into question. Accordingly, the Commission would need to reopen the package notified last December.
  Moreover, aids accepted as restructuring would have to be redefined and any excess repaid. In practice, that would mean an increase in British Shipbuilders' market borrowing, a sum of £90 million the previous December, because otherwise the corporation would have been in breach of the sixth directive.
  Secondly, the Commissioner made it plain that in any circumstances he would be bound to recommend a procedure, which would take some six months. Thirdly, the Commissioner also made it plain that, since he regarded the Commission's clearance of the enteprise zone as dependent upon the closure of NESL, the Commission's continued approval of the zone could not be assumed.
  Mr. Clay: We understand why the Minister is reading from the statement in the Library. However, he has reached the crux of the matter. We have just heard the two crucial points. What the Minister has read out about the problems of British Shipbuilders' commercial borrowing, he has read out as being the Commission view. According to that, by definition, it would not have been possible to sell off the yards. In other words, the bidders were wasting their time if the Government accepted the Commission's view, because no one could buy the yards.
  The second crucial consideration for the Government is the enterprise zone, because they do not want to risk that. Is it not extraordinary that another Commissioner is querying Sir Leon Brittan's judgment, and querying whether the competition Commissioner can link the two matters? Despite that query, the British Government have accepted Sir Leon Brittan's judgment and caved in.
  Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has already made plain, in this regard Sir Leon is the lead Commissioner. We have to form a view as to what is the likely effect of the advice that the lead Commissioner is bound to give to his colleagues. Having regard to the advice that he set out in his letter of 13 July, it is inevitable that if the lead Commissioner gave the advice there set out, it would have the consequences there itemised. Even if that is not a certain consequence to, on any view of the matter it is a highly probable one. That assessment has to be judged against the other benefits that will flow to Sunderland from the establishment of the enterprise zone.
  The other issue raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North touches on the effect of the borrowing. It is clear that a substantial debt transferred to an acquiring bidder creates a problem for that bidder. I suspect that it would put the problem too high to say that the transaction thereby became impossible. Clearly, however, such a debt would increase the problem. Were the Government to renotify the shipbuilding proposals for the yard, the future of the Sunderland measures could be
  1294
  called into question. In any event—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect upon this—progress would be delayed for at least six months.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I realise that conditions vary in different parts of the country, but it may be of some consolation to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullins) if I recall the fact that after the Chatham dockyard closed, with cataclysmic results for the morale of those living in Chatham, two enterprise zones were declared. Chatham now has remarkably low unemployment and a thriving economy with a large number of businesses. I hope that that may be of some consolation to the hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. Hogg: That echoes the point that I have made already. My hon. Friend's experience coincides with experience at Consett, Corby and Scunthorpe, where the establishment of enterprise zones has led to a substantial increase in prosperity and employment. I hope that the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South will take that message back to their constituents.
  When considering the future of Sunderland, the Government must take account of the relatively certain promise of the enterprise zone and the other measures that were announced in December 1988. The current estimate is that at least 3,000 to 4,000 jobs would result from those initiatives. That is one relatively certain proposition on which we must reflect. We must also consider the shipbuilding proposals, which as a result of the attitude adopted by the European Commission are likely to involve delay for at least six months. They would call into question the enterprise zone, and they are likely to result in financial obligations that would make the transaction extremely unattractive.
  Mr. Clay: The Minister has still not responded to the central question. If what he has said is true and that is the Government's judgment, that must have been true in January. The enterprise zone would have been in danger then. Against that background, why did the Government allow people to waste their time and money bidding for the shipyards? If the Commission has changed its mind and hardened its attitude, why do not the Government say to it, "We are sorry but you should have told us this before; we have bidders now, so we shall get on with it."?
  Mr. Hogg: I understand that intervention to be a reference to the acquisition by the acquiring bidder of the capital debt.
  Mr. Clay: And the difficulty of the enterprise zone.
  Mr. Hogg: Indeed. Officials had estimated that any redefinition of cost by the Commission within the rules of the directive would be capable of being covered by British Shipbuilders' expected net income over the years to come, provided that there was no intervention fund support and that the Pallion yard remained closed. In other words, they did not accept in their assumptions that there would inevitably be an odd capital obligation of the sort set out in the Commissioner's letter of 13 July. Officials considered the problem of the co-existence of the enterprise zone with some renewed shipbuilding activity, but felt that action of the kind ultimately taken was proper. The criticism of those officials by the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South is not warranted.

  1295
  The Government concluded that in all the circumstances, the enterprise zone and the other measures described were in Sunderland's best long-term interests. My right hon. Friend accordingly invited British Shipbuilders, in consultation with the Tyne and Wear development corporation, to undertake further work with the existing bidders in examining the use of the yard's assets for purposes other than shipbuilding, with a view to making final recommendations in due course.
  The establishment of the enterprise zone and all the other elements of the package of measures to promote enterprise and new jobs in Sunderland will press ahead with all possible vigour. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the former Chancellor of the Duchy, devoted considerable energy and personal commitment to finding the best way forward for Sunderland. After careful examination of all the facts, he concluded that the enterprise zone solution was the best. From all the material that I have examined, I see no reason to differ from that view. Advantage must be taken of the measures that the Government have made available.
  Sunderland's shipbuilding traditions have been strong, but as well as bringing periods of prosperity, they brought periods of great uncertainty. The means are now available to the Tyne area, through the enterprise zone and other measures, to grow in terms of prosperity and employment. I hope and believe that the energy, skill and determination of the people whom the two hon. Gentlemen represent in their respective constituencies will achieve that highly desirable result.

  Railways
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Roger King: For six weeks the British public endured the inconvenience of a national rail strike. Tonight, we learned that, at long last, the end is in sight, and the the National Union of Railwaymen has decided to accept the 8·8 per cent. offer that has been on the table for two weeks or more and to resume normal working. We can be grateful for that, but the dispute revealed for all to see the sheer incompetence of British Rail's management and the bone-headed stupidity of the NUR.
  The malaise that affects that once great industry is clear to see—a constant struggle between employers and employees to extract the last ounce of concession, with the innocent public left as the victims. The irony of the latest dispute is that the other two rail unions settled earlier for a not unreasonable 8·8 per cent. pay increase, which is the same figure that now has the NUR's agreement.
  Rumour has it that Jimmy Knapp, the NUR's general secretary, would have done a deal earlier if his union had allowed him, but that he had a little local difficulty. In making known their view that the union should settle, the Opposition did so in as quiet a voice as possible, lest anyone should hear, and made no impact on the parties involved reaching agreement. No one in the NUR believed the Leader of the Opposition. If they had, a settlement would have been reached sooner.
  Meanwhile, British Rail's management procrastinated in a ritualistic way, promising a service on a strikebound day, only to find that the system had to be totally shut down, Yesterday, some semblance of a service was provided, and perhaps that showed the unions involved that they could not continue the dispute with any credibility.
  The general public were forced to endure unbelievable discomfort, struggling to and from work stuck in a coagulated traffic jam in record temperatures. Our newspapers have been full of traffic jams on the M25 and the main arterial roads into London, as elsewhere throughout the land in many of our cities.
  In essence, apart from a basic pay increase, the NUR's desire to maintain a national wage structure, as opposed to a regional one, can he understood in terms of union influence and power, but hardly at all in terms of common sense. The NUR concedes that it is some 7,000 staff short in the south-east, yet it is not prepared to get round the table and discuss regional pay in order to encourage people to join the railway industry in an area where they are desperately needed.
  This nonsense of a dispute need never have arisen in the first place. Talks broke off when one party, the NUR, wanted to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the other wished to use British Rail's tribunal. The result was a complete impasse—absolutely unbelievable. I make no distinction between the behaviour of the management and the behaviour of the unions. Blame can be attached to both in equal measure.
  Britain's workers, certainly those employed in the public sector, need what I would describe as a contract of negotiation; a legal document which clearly sets out the negotiating procedure to be adopted by both parties. The failure of those parties to agree to negotiate in the set legal way could lead to court action. It would be incumbent on

  1297
  the union to ensure that it had fulfilled that legal contract of negotiation before it could conduct a ballot for strike action. Then we could avoid the nonsense whereby, in the final act of arbitration, there is a dispute over which body the parties should go to.
  I accept that the NUR viewed British Rail's wage tribunal as unacceptable for the purpose of discussing an alteration in pay structure. It is a tribunal which exists to negotiate pay terms, and its reason for not wishing to go to the tribunal could be understood, since it preferred to go to ACAS, where the method of payment within the railway industry could have been discussed.
  For its part, the management may not have made itself too obviously available to negotiate a settlement with ACAS, believing that the tribunal could resolve matters. A legal document such as the contract of negotiation that I have described would have left no grey area for dispute between management or unions. Only in that way can we eliminate the sort of nonsense that we have recently witnessed. Only after that could a strike ballot be legally called.
  During the recent one-day stoppages the commuter has either had to stay at home or struggle, often for hours, to his place of work. I can vouch for the fact that roads into London are now becoming jammed with traffic before 6 o'clock. A short five-mile journey into the House of Commons at 6 o'clock can land one in a very long tailback, negotiating difficult junctions.
  The Government have exacerbated the problem by providing more parking spaces for cars when it could be argued that we really need fewer parking spaces. We need not extra parking spaces in Hyde park or Battersea park but the removal of existing parking spaces in order to deter a massive influx of cars into the capital which end up in hours and hours of jammed traffic with practically no business being conducted. That would encourage the concept of car sharing.
  I hope that we shall not have to experience this annual charade again and that a formula can be found to ensure that we do not. However, having settled on pay, in a few weeks' time we may well witness further disruption if the pay structure that the British Rail Board wants to alter is not agreed with the unions, and we shall be back to one-day stoppages again. We should encourage further steps to keep our cities moving.
  The population in general would request the Government to do a little more than they have done over the past six weeks of one-day stoppages. I have already mentioned restrictions on parking places—a perfectly reasonable concept. We should go further, and perhaps, if necessary, issue an order to restrict car usage—when appropriate—to those sporting odd numbers on their number plates one week and those sporting even numbers the next. I know that some people have two cars and could use their odd-numbered car one week and their even-numbered car the next, but they are the exceptions, and such a system would, by the law of averages, reduce traffic considerably. It would free the city's traffic and enable us to combat the effects of an industrial dispute far more successfully than we have over the past six weeks.
  Such a policy would place greater emphasis on other public transport systems—buses and coaches in particular. With traffic congestion roughly halved and bus journey
  1298
  times greatly reduced, it ought to be possible to cater for most people's needs. It must surely be beyond dispute that commuting conditions would improve as a consequence. If we are to stand up to disputes such as this, we must use all the weapons at our disposal to ensure that the life of our cities continues with as little interruption as possible.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to talk to all interested parties, especially the Bus and Coach Council about how best to keep our cities moving in the event of a repetition of the rail strike. I do not think that it helps to cancel bus lanes, only to accommodate more cars—a policy that the Department has tried in the past few weeks. On the contrary—we need more dedicated bus routes, and we should certainly keep the bus lanes open to enable buses and coaches to bring passengers in with as much haste as they possibly can.
  The present rail dispute has brought our rail system under the microscope. It was built when there was no alternative and has since been subjected to intense competition, especially from road vehicles. Nevertheless, some say that a new railway age is about to dawn. I would not dispute that. There is much sense in the assertion, but only if we can accept the challenge of new policies.
  British Rail has a monopoly. Some of its resources are grossly under-used while others are near saturation point. A monopoly brings with it monopoly union power and the ability to hold everyone to ransom.
  Mr. Peter Snape: How original.
  Mr. King: Sometimes one needs to state the obvious to emphasise the problems that we face.
  We should explore the possibility of breaking up the monopoly. That would need a great deal of courage on the Government's part, but the time is ripe. We can thank Jimmy Knapp, the NUR and the British Railways Board for bringing this item on to the agenda. The dispute has brought into focus the challenge of how to make our railway system more efficient and more answerable to the country.
  There are a number of options open to us. Privatising the whole system at one go would solve absolutely nothing, and it could even make matters worse, so that idea can be disposed of very quickly. We should still be left with a monopoly rail system. For many people, rail is the only available mode of transport and for them, the monopoly remains.
  Privatising by operating sector has its attractions, and I used to favour it, but it is fatally flawed. One would need a track authority, separate from the operating companies, and that could lead to signalmen and others holding operators to ransom if they wished to do so. There is no indication that they would, but the opportunity would be there for them to do so, very much as air traffic controllers can hold airlines to ransom, as we have seen over the past few months.
  I believe that privatising along the lines of the old regional companies—still present under the existing regime but now known as regions—wins on points and has many advantages. As an initial exercise, I would favour the creation of three operating divisions, which would have to be big enough to generate sufficient business that avoids too many complications of cross-regional traffic. The old railway companies suffered problems with the amount of cross-border traffic. That caused problems in accounting as revenues were transferred, sometimes between two,

  1299
  three or four different regions and the system became horrendously complicated. We have a national railway system at present and it would be extremely difficult to unscramble it back to the system that existed in the days of the railway companies.
  If the system is broken up into three companies, one would be based in the west of the United Kingdom and another in the east. Both would contain elements of the Scottish railway system. The third company would be located in the south and south-east, comprising, generally speaking, Network SouthEast. The southern network, because of its essentially radial trackwork, may well lend itself to individual line privatisation. Individual companies used to radiate out of London, and a few years ago the Southend line was considered a candidate for a self-contained private system.
  It would not be necessary to privatise all three systems at the same time. One might be privatised initially, with the others following at intervals. The new companies would be free to develop their services as they wished. The social obligations would remain as they are at present, so that they provided the services that people wish them to provide as was the case under the old metropolitan transport authorities.
  It may make good sense to convert some of the little-used secondary lines into busways. Experiments to that end have been most successful in other countries. We must remember that railways are particularly expensive to provide.
  Before a train has travelled a line, the standing costs are extremely high. In many parts of the country the system is used for only 3 per cent. of the time—it stands idle for the other 97 per cent. The opportunities to simplify the system by converting many of our little-used railway lines into dedicated busways must be considered. The idea has much merit and it has worked in some cities, in particular in Canada.
  During the Beeching era, 60 miles of the great central railway from Rugby to High Wycombe were closed. That track was built for high-speed running and the trackway has lain derelict ever since. Much of it has now been built on and it would be far too difficult to reconvert the trackway to transport use. However, it could have been converted to a bus or coach way which would have enabled operators to gain access to central London while avoiding the present heavy traffic. We could weep for the loss of that marvelous asset. The opportunity of using that trackway as an alternative to the railways has probably been lost for ever.
  There are many ways in which a railway system can be converted satisfactorily for road use. Not so very long ago in the west midlands we developed a bus system called Trac Line. That was a guided bus which ran along a small narrow track way. It had small wheels on either side of the vehicle for steering. The experiment ran only for about a quarter of a mile and it is no longer in use because it could not be adapted immediately for a city environment. However, there are opportunities to build on that system to provide an alternative transport system to the railways.
  Road coach travel in the United Kingdom has proved very successful in providing some competition to the rail system in whatever format we may choose to develop it. We could leave the system in its present state guise in which the dangers of a continuing monopoly will mean that we can expect periodic stoppages and disruptions. We may decide to privatise sectors. That would create
  1300
  competition and allow railwaymen to participate in their own business; we know from previous privatisation that that has proven to be a very effective spur to the work force to invest in its own business and to produce profits with an expectation of wage increases.
  That would provide a great spur for those businesses to respond to customers' needs in the way that only privatisation can. Even in the privatised form that I described, they would not have the necessary competition to provide the extra efficiency that we desperately need. According to newspaper reports, last year about 60,000 passenger trains failed to start. That is a considerable number, but as a percentage it is not very high. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced great inconvenience through trains being cancelled. Obviously, we deplore that and would wish to introduce a system to reduce the increasing number of trains that do not start on time.
  The trouble with road passenger coach operations trying to compete with the railways is that they have great difficulty fighting their way through the traffic of London. That problem would be eased considerably if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take the concept of bus lanes a stage further and ensure that, instead of operating in rush hours, they were freely available for use by buses and coaches throughout the day. Both those modes of travel are extremely energy-efficient. It is a great shame that we expect them to bash their way through heavy traffic, mixing their paths with those of cars, lorries and so on on the roads.
  There are opportunities for route swapping with the railways. Not long ago, British Airways was obliged to give some of its routes to British Midland to provide the internal competition that we desperately wanted. Hon. Members have seen the high quality of service that both airlines provide and, of course, the generation of traffic that greater competition and efficiency have provided for both operators. British Midland and British Airways have done and are doing exceedingly well. If we could dedicate a route for coaches to get into the centre of London with the minimum of disruption, we could provide the sort of competition with which the railways can compete. At the moment there is a complacent take-it-or-leave-it attitude, and we must fight it.
  Not so long ago, there was much talk about Marylebone station being converted into a coach station, with access to the city centre via the old central rail system from near High Wycombe. The opportunity now presents itself for that proposal to be re-examined so that we can provide an alternative for the customer—the person who wants to travel from A to B—who, so far, is largely condemned to travel by British Rail. Time and again we have found that privatisation with employee participation spells a better deal for the consumer, but the opportunity to create competition for the railways, in whatever guise they adopt, should not be lost.
  I have mentioned that the rail dispute has thrown into perspective the opportunities that the railways must exploit over the next few years to provide the service that the community demands. That service cannot be provided under the present structure, with the intransigence of the trade unions and the poor quality of the management presently operating the railway system.
  A privatised system along the lines that I have described would make the various railway companies compete with each other. The railway system has no substantial

  1301
  competition other than fairly realistic competition from coaches. It will not have a real substantial alternative until we can resolve some of the problems that other modes of travel experience in gaining access to our major cities. If the Minister for Public Transport can offer some hope that he will take on board the initiative of allowing the coach industry a greater opportunity to compete with railways through the maintenance of busways and through the provision of new routes into our city centres, which may utilise existing redundant railway routes, he will be well on the way to providing us with an efficient and highly effective form of public transport.
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I thought that he would talk about railway policy, but I suppose that coming from Northfield and a motor manufacturing area, it was appropriate for him to comment on coaches and roads. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is typical of the new theology, which is so common on the Conservative Benches, especially among newer hon. Members.
  Mr. Snape: An old theology.
  Mr. Spearing: It may be an old theology, but it is spatchcocked into conditions that do not pertain, as they might have done—I am not sure that they ever did—in the 19th century. It is competition by compulsion, privatisation of public assets and conning the public by asking them to buy what they already own. There is a concern—it may be a proper one—for competition for the railways, but over the past 10 years we all know that long-distance coach travel, with usherettes, television, coffee, deep seats and, above all, the use of the motorways has provided that competition in a way which would hardly have seemed credible a few years ago, even with respect to speed, which is, of course, sometimes above the legal limits.
  There is also the denial of the proper role of unions. A Birmingham Member speaking about London problems, I suppose, is just about legitimate, but I remind the hon. Member for Northfield that privatisation of some of the major roads of Birmingham for a few days in a year, which he may have supported, denies those roads to the public of Birmingham—even the motor coaches on which he is so keen.
  The public have been sympathetic to the cause of railway workers, because they understand far better than many Conservative Members the difficulties and problems of working on the railways. The railway for a professional railway worker is a dangerous place. The public see them, of course, in their workplace, which is extended over hundreds of miles. Without the necessary training, discipline and experience, the safety of the public is at risk, as we have unhappily seen in the past few years.
  Experience, loyalty and morale, all of which are essential to the running of a railway, together with teamwork, do not show on the balance sheet. I put it strongly to Conservative Members that, in their obsession with the annual balance sheet, they lose out on human factors that cannot be bought and sold and will not show even on a capital balance sheet.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend accept that chief among the human factors has been the extent to which over the years the railway work force has been undervalued in terms of low pay, and that part of the reason for the Clapham incident, for example, was the enormous amount of overtime that railway workers had been forced to work to make a decent wage?
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend puts it correctly. The southern region has been existing for several years on its drivers doing forced overtime. I made that point in the House at the time of the Clapham disaster. Overtime is forced by management on an unwilling work force because of the Government's edict about such things as efficiency. I do not consider that efficient at all. That is where competition of the worst sort gets us. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northfield would agree on that. In the 1930s, Conservatives passed Acts on the road coach industry to prevent men and machines from competing each other into the ground. Some new Conservative Members do not understand the mistakes that were made in the past and introduce new schemes without realising the dangers involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned morale. The railway will run only if the rule book is both kept and ignored. The railway is a family concern, literally and metaphorically, which requires teamwork and loyalty. If management is stupid enough not to recognise loyalty and teamwork as first desiderata, things will go wrong. I agree with the hon. Member for Northfield that higher management has been inefficient, but it has been forced into taking stupid action by Government requirements.
  Tonight, an 8·5 per cent. pay increase was provisionally agreed. Presumably the hon. Member for Northfield has not agreed with the action taken so far by the railwaymen, but is it not a fact that if they had not taken such action they would have been accepting a cut in pay? I ask the Minister for Public Transport to reply to that question later. Would he expect people who work shifts and unsocial hours and who are being increasingly ground down by difficult conditions to take a pay cut? I do not believe that he would. Conservative Members have talked so much twaddle over the past few weeks that the anger in my voice is forgivable. Does the hon. Member for Northfield agree that if railwaymen had not taken action they would have been accepting a pay cut?
  I spoke earlier of unsocial conditions, morale and loyalty. A feature of the railway system over the past 30 years has been national conciliation and pay bargaining. Conservative Members believe that the labour problem on the railway will be solved by regional pay structures. Local incentives have been available in the Civil Service and public service for various reasons, but workers in the water industry, teachers, doctors or anyone else who is in dispute with this wretched Government——
  Mr. Anderson: Or the National and Local Government Officers Association.
  Mr. Spearing: Yes, or NALGO. All those people are in dispute not only about pay but about conditions. Labour Members are aware of that only too well, but ignorant Conservative Members know nothing about it. The hon. Member for Northfield may smile, but what counts are the conditions of work—hours, time off, arrangements with the foreman, and so on. Railway drivers on southern

  1303
  region, who are at the peak of their profession, have begun to resign. Who would believe that people who have climbed the ladder in the railway profession would resign to take up a job in industry because the conditions there are easier and more congenial?
  As part of their grand scheme for all industries and trades, the Government are trying to get rid of national pay bargaining. That is a retrograde step. That is why the agreement that has been reached today is only provisional. The bargaining currently going on is about national conditions. If national conditions are removed, workers can be undermined. I hope that this is a civilised society. The Prime Minister talks frequently about the need for the family. Good conditions of work, safety and all the other matters that I mentioned are fundamental.
  I commend to Conservative Members the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) at business questions today, when he told us that some of his constituents took home less than £90 a week on which to keep a family. The Prime Minister was present and for once heard the facts. We hear that sometimes she listens and learns. I hope that she learned something during her uncustomarily lengthy stay at business questions today.
  Bad industrial relations in the motor industry did not start with public ownership. The problem was endemic. The hon. Member for Northfield may know about this. It is most intriguing and unfortunate that a gentleman from the motor industry has been involved in the recent railways dispute. I do not blame him personally. He is a professional man with a career. He has been the chief arbitration negotiator. The psychological needs of employees and employers in the two industries could not be more different. The history of the one is markedly different from the other. How far has that been at least a contributory factor in the unhappy few weeks that the country has been going through?
  I well recall the equivalent gentleman, Mr. Rose, who took part in the discussions on flexible rostering. He was a good man. I believe that that episode helped to hasten his death. He knew that what he was being asked to do was not in line with experience, safety, morale and the family spirit which alone makes the railways operate properly.
  Mr. Snape: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend, who also knew that gentleman, agrees with me.
  It is a great pity that this new broom attitude is coming into London Regional Transport. I shall not dwell on the question of safety on the deep tubes, as I have already mentioned it and the Minister wrote to me about it, but he should consider carefully matters on which he has taken a provisional decision. In the past two or three weeks I have been going through King's Cross. On Sunday night an escalator there was screaming blue murder. It sounded as though an animal was being murdered. It has been juddering and screaming like that for at least three weeks. When I inquired about it, I was told, "Oh, yes, we have sent for the engineers, but nothing has been done." I should have thought that King's Cross was the last station at which LRT could keep an escalator running in that condition, but I understand that the escalator service and engineering in LRT is still in difficulties.
  The Select Committee on Transport issued a little known report which I have quoted before, but it is worth
  1304
  quoting again. I refer to HC 44 of the current Session, and the Minister is directly involved. The concluding paragraph reads:
  "On 12 June the Secretary of State, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, said 'I would have to hear convincing arguments from London Underground Limited before I agreed to pricing people off the Underground.'"
  Peak hour pricing has been proposed to reduce overcrowding. The paragraph concludes:
  "We hope that the arguments would have to be more convincing than those presented to us by London Regional Transport on 7 June. We intend to keep the matter under review."
  That was the view of an all-party Select Committee after hearing the evidence of Mr. Wilfred Newton, chairman of London Regional Transport.
  It is curious to think that LRT is responsible for the planning of all passenger rail traffic in London. That was news to me when I was told it in a written answer by the former Secretary of State for Transport. Statutorily that is correct. There is now no strategic planning in London, but as that issue will be debated later tonight I shall not dwell on it now, save to say that such planning as we have is the summation of borough plans, and LRT is responsible for co-ordinating all passenger transport by rail and bus in London. But LRT is not in a position to do that. The result is that the Minister issues advice—he commissions reports and comes up with advice, and I will cite a few instances of that later.
  British Rail and its imaginative management in the early 1980s had plans for transport in London. In November 1980, the then chairman wrote in a book entitled "Cross-London Rail Link":
  "We are publishing this during difficult economic times For the country. But it is essential to maintain the impetus of forward thinking as part of BR's strategy for changing our services to meet new demands. Moreover, it is necessary that we consider now what sort of railway services the nation will require in the 1990s and at the dawn of the new century because major developments in transport systems and infrastructure involve long lead times."
  The management of BR was certainly looking forward at that time. It said that its cross-London rail link scheme would take three years to plan and six years to complete. Had the Government implemented that scheme, we would not have the present overcrowding. But the Government said that they did not want it. They probably said that as it would not pay 7 per cent. it could not be done. That was a narrow, confined, non-public and, in the end, stupid and unsustainable attitude on the part of the Government.
  Earlier, Conservative attitudes had been different. The famous Mr. Marples—who had nothing to do with the equally famous lady of that name—had the wisdom to approve the Victoria line, even though it was known that it would lose money. He was a Conservative with a civic attitude to life.
  Conservative Members are entitled to believe that today we need enterprise and efficiency and people with dynamism and vision to use private capital to provide services and goods for customers. They do not appreciate, however, that for that strategy to work properly, there must be within society not only abstract but absolute physical provision which is common to all. Without that commonality of service, the activities that people can do best in an enterprise will not flourish and cannot operate on any basis of fundamental consistency and expectation.

  1305
  Railways—particularly in and around London—come into that type of public service expectation, with efficiency of course.
  Instead of that, we have the central London rail study, and the Government say that, in respect of the cross-rail link, they will agree to have it for Paddington to Liverpool street if the developers pay something. As for the east London rail study, the Government say that the developers must pay some money, and the provisional document relating to the east London study, published yesterday, is nothing more than an Olympia and York benefit. Because there has been no real strategic study in London, Olympia and York get partly conned in that they go to the Isle of Dogs and find that the only transport there is the docklands light railway, which is not big enough, and that the only approved road, at least until recently, was one planned in the post-Napoleonic war era and four carts wide. That was planning, up to a point. Olympia and York has now approached the Government saying, "To make it viable and to make east London worthy, let us have an east London rail study." But it is not for east Londoners—it is for the shareholders and brothers who run Olympia and York.
  Stratford is an excellent place for a Channel tunnel terminal because it now has cross-rail and may also have the other line to which I have referred. Again, this point shows up the Government's lack of planning for the rail needs of London and the Channel tunnel. British Rail has said that Waterloo will be fine—no doubt with Government backing—and certainly without strategic planning. Although it said that Waterloo is all that is needed, it is now saying that King's Cross is needed as well. However, only four platforms at King's Cross are to be used for international traffic. Even if the six planned platforms were used, one cannot stretch the station and increase its size. There has clearly not been very much planning in that regard. In other words, although the Government are now saying that they need more railway infrastructure and better planning, it is being done on a piecemeal basis.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the new railway for Heathrow is to be privatised. Obviously, it should be part of a through rail system for London, perhaps from Stratford where a new Channel tunnel terminal could go straight through to Heathrow and—if some common sense were shown—loop back to Waterloo.
  Those are some of the ways in which the Government are not concerning themselves with proper rail planning. Through their theological obsession, they are requiring an input from developers when everybody in our society knows that we should develop wise long-term planning strategies. For the Government, everything is short term. They will not plan ahead.
  I contacted the Department of Transport five or six years ago about a matter in my constituency. I can measure the time by the fact that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) was then Under-Secretary of State. I begged her to put in some DLR extension earthworks to the new roads in the area, but the Department would not do it. There are now plans for a six-lane motorway in east London over a new bridge, the design of which was announced last week. Five or six years ago I asked that that bridge have the facility for an
  1306
  extension of the DLR to Thamesmead, but the Department would not even consider the idea. This week there has been a new east London rail study and—lo and behold—it is proposed that a railway will run not far from that very bridge and that it could also include the DLR. The duplication and lack of forethought is almost mind-boggling and cannot be understood. Even the post-war Conservative Government did better under people such as Mr. Marples.
  In conclusion, the ideas of the hon. Member for Northfield about privatisation are totally impractical because of his lack of knowledge of the working lives, aspirations and need for good conditions in relation to both efficiency and safety on the part of those who run and those who work on the railways. We must recognise above all the experience that has been collected over the years. The management must use that experience, as well as new ideas, and match the two together. That is what we all want. I only wish that Conservative Members knew a bit more about the technical and human side of running railways. They would then not say the stupid things that they have been saying in the past few weeks.
  12.18 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): In recent months I have learnt a little bit about railways—of course, not as much as my hon. Friend the Minister who, in addition to his sharp mind, has the benefit of an assiduous staff. But nevertheless I have learnt something.
  I know that my hon. Friend sometimes grows impatient with me because, as he told a friend of mine, I get things wrong, but I plead in mitigation that too much of my information comes from British Rail; and as we all know, what British Rail tells us on Monday is wrong by Wednesday. In that context, it might interest my hon. Friend to inquire why British Rail has changed the permitted gradients on its proposed high-speed rail line from one in 50 to one in 90.
  However, my hon. Friend will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to spend time tonight on the great British Rail project which is tearing my constituency apart and frightening out of their wits the residents of parts of England's most beautiful countryside.
  I shall meet the new Secretary of State—I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, who I thought was a remarkable Minister in many ways—tomorrow. I shall raise then the many concerns with which my constituents charge me and which I am happy to represent to him.
  I propose to apply some of the lessons that I have learnt from this business to a broader argument about the future of the railways in the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is sceptical about or sympathetic to the view that I am about to put forward, but I believe that Europe stands on the threshold of an enormous economic and political revolution comparable with the industrial revolution. Just as the latter could not have been achieved without dramatic advances in transportation, nor can the European revolution of 1992.
  To those of us who are old enough to remember the Beeching axe, the proposition that Europe's future hangs on its railways sounds bizarre. When the chairmen of Europe's railways met the European Community Transport Commissioner recently, they proposed to build

  1307
  no fewer than 19,000 miles of track, two thirds of which would be entirely new. That is $100 billion-worth of railway line.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): How many private Bills?
  Mr. Rowe: Why? Because they know that, in the richest trading bloc in the world, there will be a myriad of journeys long enough to carry passengers who would otherwise travel by air and to carry freight which would otherwise go by road. The French experience alone has shown that rail is an effective competitor with air over distances from 125 to 600 miles, and is far quicker than road. It is twice as fast as a car and half the price of an aeroplane. On the Paris to sud-est line, 1·2 million passengers, or 56·5 per cent. of the market, have transferred from air to rail, according to the latest count.
  Here, all this excitement seems set to pass us by. Not for us the comprehensive planning of a national network that is designed to snatch traffic back from aircraft and lorries. Not for us the prestigious purpose-built stations to welcome visitors to Britain or to speed them into Europe. For us there is to be one hurriedly planned, grudgingly financed, under-protected high-speed line boring its way not to one carefully designed terminus, but two.
  British Rail's view of whether two termini or one is a good idea depends on the date and the audience to which the opinion is being delivered. At present, I think that it is believed to be a good idea. I hope that it is, because Waterloo and King's Cross, on present plans, are to provide the welcome of 21st century Britain to hundreds of thousands of European business men and tourists.
  Of course, which stations are available will not matter if there are no staff to man them or if the trains break down mechanically. I rejoice for my constituents in the fact that the National Union of Railwaymen has tonight reached agreement, however provisionally, with British Rail. By the time the tunnel opens, we must have a better system of running our railways. That is why I am speaking in this debate. I believe that 21st century Britain cannot play its full part in the railway revolution while it insists on a 19th century view of railway investment.
  I understand precisely why the Government, faced in 1979 with a sluggish, nationalised leviathan that swallowed subsidy in preference to earning income by providing services, subjected BR to the discipline of a 7 per cent. return on its capital projects and have tried to reduce its dependence on subsidy. There have been great benefits from that discipline. Management is tighter—although it is sometimes hard to remember—subsidies are lower and customers are beginning to feature in BR's publicity, its thinking and even occasionally in its services. As a result, investment in BR has never been higher, and the Government deserve great credit for that.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that that will not do as a long-term strategy. When lines are closing, passenger demand was declining and journey miles were limited by the English channel, the strategy contained the costs of a dwindling asset, but the situation is now reversed. If conditions are right, railways could become as vital a part of United Kingdom infrastructure as roads or airlines.
  So far, British Rail, constrained by rules set by the Government, has been unwilling to invest in the expectation of creating a demand. Instead it confines itself
  1308
  to investing late to meet a demand that is already there. That is bad enough in a crowded passenger market; in an intensely competitive freight market it is suicidal. It is time that railways and roads in the United Kingdom were treated on equal terms.
  Roads, which can use up to four times as much land as railways, are not built and maintained by the owners of the cars and lorries that use they daily; they are paid for out of general taxation. The Treasury may join the motoring organisations in claiming that the road user pays for the roads through road and petroleum tax, but that is a specious argument. If it were sustainable, four times as much would be spent on the roads programme. User taxes in 1987–88 yielded £14,664,000,000, while roads cost £3,578,000,000. The discrepancy shows clearly that road taxes are no more hypothecated than any other tax, and the hidden costs of congestion, pollution and accidents further distort the comparison.
  We need to incorporate the railways fully in our strategic transport planning. It is imperative, for example, that instead of wrenching a new railway to follow haphazardly an existing motorway—as is the case with the M20 and the new Kent line—we should be able to plan new roads and railways in tandem. New technology in transport wagons cries out for coherence in route planning; intermodal wagons capable of travelling on both road and rail make it essential that we change our systems.
  Let us take freight capacity. British Rail believes that, if it tried very hard, it might capture up to 6·1 million tonnes of freight by 1993. Eurotunnel believes that it should be 7·4 million, and SNCF 7·2 million. For 2003, British Rail looks for 7 million, Eurotunnel for 11·4 million and SCNF for 16·4 million. Those are huge differences. I believe that they are explicable only because British Rail is so demoralised by its present financial constraints that it dare not think big.
  Hitherto, freight has always been BR's poor relation. "Oops!" it will say, "here comes a passenger train. Shove the freight into a siding." But 21st century Europe looks for time-sensitive deliveries over thousands of miles, guaranted free of traffic jams and hold-ups. Rail could deliver that, but to build a United Kingdom network capable of complementing its thrusting Euro-network on the back of British Rail's unique system of finance, which effectively rules out any cost-benefit calculations comparable with those used in planning roads, is beyond the scope of both the present management and any management likely to emerge. Let the taxpayer pay for the building and maintenance of the tracks, and let British Rail or private contractors run the services on them.
  If we want some lines to be toll lines, that could be even more easily arranged than toll roads. Let proposals for new lines be subject to planning procedures. Nothing could be worse than what we in Kent have had to endure during what have been laughably called the consultation procedures. It is not, I think, because British Rail is malicious—I believe that it wants to consult, but does not know how to—but because it is trying to do too much too quickly.
  We have a new Secretary of State for Transport. He has an opportunity and, I believe, a duty to provide Britain with a modern railway system able to stand comparison with the great new systems of Europe, and capable of taking massive burdens of freight and massive congestion off the roads and airways of the United Kingdom and the

  1309
  continent. If he wants to do that he can, but he cannot do it if he continues to treat the railways as though they were quite different from all other forms of transport.
  I do not expect my hon. Friend to make a radical commitment late on the last night of a long hot Session. All that I ask is for him to look with a fresh eye at the whole business of building, financing and running railways, which will still be here long after even his youthful countenance has turned to dust.
  12.29 am
  Mr. John Bowis: I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was so reluctant to ask the Minister to provide answers on the last night of the Session. It is an ideal time, because the Minister can slip away and escape cross-examination. I have decided to contribute to the debate not least because the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was so scathing—perhaps he was crotchety due to the late hour—in his references to new Conservative Members. I thought that, as the hon. Gentleman had not yet heard any new Conservative Members, perhaps he ought to hear one to enable him to judge whether the views expressed about them are correct.
  I welcome the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent was quite right to refer to strikes. Both management and workers in British Rail should be told that the one thing that undermines public confidence is strike action such as we have seen. To those of us who want to see confidence return to British Rail and genuine options to road transport, it is rather dispiriting to see public confidence dissipated by strikes.
  Mr. Spearing: In my speech I referred in general terms, while understanding that there are exceptions, to the general theology of capitalism that is being propounded. The hon. Gentleman condemns strikes. Does he disagree with me about people who go on strike to defend their general living standards? If the strikers had accepted the offer would that not have meant a reduction in their income?
  Mr. Bowis: Their action affects the living standards of others, and in the case of a public service one must be careful about how one uses the strike weapon. I do not deny people the right to strike, but they must ask themselves what effect it will have on others.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) talked about running buses on disused railway tracks. I do not disagree about that, but my hon. Friend must ask himself where the wretched things will park when they get to the inner cities. There are already far too many buses trying to park on the roads, especially in inner London, and we need to take account of that.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South also spoke about staffing and negotiations. There was an element of truth in what he said, but one must look at the whole question of attracting people to work on the railways. I pay tribute to the many excellent people who work there and I want to see more. One of the reasons for staff shortages is lack of housing or the inability to pay for it.
  1310
  I should like to see British Rail management using its imagination to go for equity-sharing schemes which would enable people to live in London and other cities.
  I want to support British Rail, but sometimes it does not make it easy. Aside from strikes, the public would be more willing to use our railway service if they were convinced that it was safe, reliable, regular and comfortable and met its timetables with more accuracy. Quite often those requirements are not fulfilled. There is also the matter of safety, but one must be careful about knocking safety on the railways lest one undermine public confidence.
  Clapham junction, where the recent accident occurred, is in my constituency. It is the busiest rail junction in the world, but it had never before in living memory sustained an accident in which there were casualties. We must stress the safety record of our railway system time and again so that more people will feel confident about using it. Nevertheless, I still want British Rail to come up with a more comfortable and reliable service. In my part of London, too many trains arrive with too few coaches and they are overfilled. There is no chance of people getting on. If they push, they will probably land back on the platform with bodies on top of them.
  Why is British Rail so reluctant to extend platforms? It should bring forward a programme for that so that longer trains could be used in our capital city. That matter has been greatly discussed, but there is still no programme for extending platforms. Why is BR so reluctant to reopen old lines and old stations so that the load can be spread for commuters coming into London? Why has British Rail been so reluctant for so many years to do something about the Waterloo and City line, the 50-year-old Drain? Why does it make life so difficult for those who wish to cycle to the train, put their bike on the train and cycle again at the other end? Unless one travels out of the rush hour, one cannot put one's bike on the train. Why is there not more parking for commuters using stations on the fringes of London, so that they can drive to the station and park? There is not the hunger for passengers that one would like to see.
  Why is it that, when we want to encourage freight on to the railway lines, British Rail designs a freight service that sends the freight at a slow speed, on long trains, at night, through the urban areas, disturbing everyone? Why is freight not sent cross-country to its destination? When those of us who want the Channel tunnel to succeed offer alternative proposals, why are they not considered properly? The Stratford option in particular should be studied. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Newham, South about the Stratford option and the route to Heathrow, but my heart sank when he talked about a loop back to Waterloo, as that would undo all that I am trying to achieve. Why do we have to send passengers coming in from the Channel tunnel on a tourist route with a six-mile detour to see Battersea power station on the way to Waterloo? The only reason is that British Rail has a commitment to use existing lines as far as possible.
  Why does British Rail not do more about the litter and the graffiti on the trains, so as to make them more attractive? All these whys and wherefores arise out of the frustration of one who wants to support British Rail and to see it winning the battle for passengers, and one who is tired of having to apologise for the service.
  I have said to my hon. Friend the Minister before, and I will say it again, that we need an underground link to

  1311
  Clapham junction, the busiest rail junction in the world, but still not connected to the Underground. I also agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South that my hon. Friend should speak sharply—as severely as he likes—to the chairman of London Regional Transport. We do not want people priced off the Underground system. Nor do we want, as LRT is now describing it, the increase in passengers to be priced off. We want people to be priced on to the system, and we want the money gained from the extra passengers to be ploughed back into the system.
  12.37 am
  Mr. Peter Snape: When I saw, on the list of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was introducing a debate on the railway system, I was surprised. As a Member representing a Birmingham constituency, he is known—I suppose that he is quite proud of it—as a motoring Member of Parliament. I thought that at last the penny had dropped, and even he had realised that the private car is not the answer to the nation's transport problems, and that we might hear from him some sensible alternatives. Alas, all that we got from him was the usual collection of clichés. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that, a couple of days after a reshuffle that, once again, did not bring that much-desired preferment to him and others like him, he is peddling the same old song.
  It is to the credit of Conservative Members that, although they are not as brutal as I about telling the hon. Gentleman, they have left him in no doubt that what he said about transport was the usual load of old cobblers. Predictably, he talked about the stupidity of one side of the rail dispute. He attacked the National Union of Railwaymen, my old trade union, but I would not expect anything better of him. He gave a nod towards the stupidity of the management. He gave no signs that he knew any more about the ins and outs of that dispute than he knows about the nation's transport problems.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the massive influx of private cars into our cities every day, and came up with the not particularly novel solution of the use of number plates. Presumably, if one has a car on which the number plate ends with an odd number, one comes in on a Monday, and if it has an even number, on a Tuesday. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is living up to his reputation of being the motorists' Member. He wants to ensure that we all have two motor cars and that motor car sales are doubled. I do not think that his suggestion will do much to curb congestion in our inner cities.
  There are two reasons why motorists drive their motor cars into our cities. First, it is infinitely preferable to drive than to use a congested transport system.
  Mr. Portillo: When there are strikes?
  Mr. Snape: The Minister will have his turn in a moment. We are aware of his simplistic solutions. As he is still in his place, I suppose that he will have a few more months to peddle the tawdry wares that he has to offer.
  The company car rules supreme in the United Kingdom despite the best efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As long as the taxation system makes it more attractive for employers to give motor cars to their employees than to pay them properly, it is understandable that employees will continue to drive their cars into our congested cities.
  1312
  I do not know what restriction on car usage the hon. Member for Northfield would favour other than the magical number plate solution.
  The hon. Gentleman's novel solution for railway privatisation would not take us very far. It seems that he wants three operating companies—east, west and south. I do not want to be accused of perpetuating the north-south divide, but the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the north is not worthy of an operating company of its own. Perhaps we should rename his constituency Birmingham East, West or Southfield. The hon. Gentleman's railway operating companies would not provide many opportunities for the north. It is a novel suggestion, but it would not work. Like most of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, it is ill thought out. I think that we can safely ignore it.
  The hon. Member for Northfield talked about buses. I am sure that we all agree that buses can make a great contribution to the provision of commuter traffic in and out of our major cities. They will not make that contribution, however, as long as we have a passion for one-person operated buses. I talk to tourists in London and they ask, "What is the point of catching a bus when it is almost as quick to walk?" If we are serious about congestion, energy-saving measures and public transport generally, we would not be moving down the road, if I may use that pun, of even more OPO buses in London. However, given the balance-sheet mentality of whatever company is supposedly running London's buses these days, that is exactly the road down which we shall move.
  Anyone who spends any time in London, whether on foot or driving a car, will know that one of the greatest causes of congestion are OPO buses. Given the balance-sheet mentality, who cares that they are costing society millions of pounds? The millions of pounds do not appear in the company's balance sheet or in those of the various divisions which have given themselves such fancy titles. No solution is offered by OPO buses.
  The hon. Member for Northfield spoke about the Trac Line bus in Birmingham. I did not realise that the scheme had won an award. I do know that it disappeared without trace. To say that it sank without trace would be to use a mixed metaphor. The scheme did not appear to offer a satisfactory solution to Birmingham's transport problems and it did not last very long. If the Government were serious about tackling Birmingham's transport problems, they would not be behaving as they are in relation to the cross-city line. The electrification proposal is still being passed backwards and forwards from British Rail to civil servants at the Department of Transport. The nonsensical criteria that have been set to prove the need for the electrification of a busy railway line must be agreed before the Minister even sees the proposal. I am not sure what sort of transport policy the hon. Member for Northfield thinks that is. I am sure that most of us would consider it nonsense.
  Perhaps even the hon. Member for Northfield would concede that railway staff are fed up with long years of low wages, long hours and high fares. British Rail's fares are the highest in Europe, and its staff have the lowest morale. Certainly they are the lowest paid in Europe, and they work the longest hours. That is not the kind of record of which even the hon. Member for Northfield, with his one-line—or, all too often, one-word—solutions to the nation's transport problems can be proud.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred, rightly, to the low morale, low pay and

  1313
  excessive overtime worked on British Rail's southern region. I hope that the Minister will, in the 10 minutes available to him, answer my hon. Friend's question, whether it is reasonable to ask low-paid workers in any industry, but particularly on the railways, given the unsocial hours that they work, to accept a pay cut for the third successive year. That is what British Rail's original offer meant.
  Does the Minister accept that, as British Rail's annual report showed, productivity on the railways has increased by 17 per cent. over the past two years? That is much higher than British Rail's percentage pay offers of the last two years, and certainly much higher than the amount put into railway workers' wage pockets, even though negotiations with their union representatives were still in progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South referred to British Rail's industrial relations, and paid tribute to BR's former industrial relations officer, the late Cliff Rose. He had the courage to defend the closed shop at meetings of the Confederation of British Industry, saying that it at least enabled him to ensure that people kept to agreements once they made them. If only that were true of British Rail's present administration.
  I do not wish to cast too many personal aspersions on British Rail's management, but perhaps I may refer to its industrial relations director. Even the hon. Member for Northfield might agree that in thinking of the one company from which one would not recruit an industrial relations director, British Leyland would immediately come to mind. Yet that was the source of the executive who is now in charge of British Rail's industrial relations. He is a man who said a couple of years ago, in the hearing of several trade unionists, that the trouble with the railways was that they were too cosy. They are not too cosy now that he has taken over. Cosiness has gone out of the window, together with job satisfaction and morale. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Northfield did not acknowledge that, instead of stringing together a lot of job-hunting clichés.
  I pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). If anyone is entitled to complain about the attitude of British Rail's management, he is. Much of what he said makes sense. We cannot go on expecting the railways, uniquely among transport modes, to produce an 8 per cent. return on every investment proposal that BR's management makes. How can a sensible, modernised national railway system be developed if every piddling little scheme must be supervised by the Minister and his civil servants—who are conspicuous by their absence at 12·48 am? Presumably they are out somewhere, studying a railway scheme to establish whether it will offer an 8 per cent. return on investment. That the hon. Member for Mid-Kent should say what he did about the future of the railways despite the problems that BR management has caused in his part of the country, and in his constituency in particular, is entirely to his credit.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent spoke of rail freight's contribution to the 1990s and to the next century. Representing as he does a constituency in the south of England, the hon. Gentleman knows that if rail freight's potential is not developed, the alternatives for his
  1314
  constituency, like others in the so-called garden of England—coming from the north, I do not view it as the garden of England—is not peace and tranquility but a tidal wave of juggernauts. I know that he recognises that.
  Without national planning—that is anathema to the Minister, the survivor of the purge in the past week in the Department of Transport—the Minister's clichés about privatisation and railwaymen being on strike will not help the hon. Member for Mid-Kent, his constituents or the south of England once the Channel tunnel opens. Unless we have a national plan and a Government who are determined to get freight back on the railway, the congestion that the hon. Gentleman foresees will come about.
  Most of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was fairly sensible, although I am not sure whether I will enhance his career by saying so. I find most of the contributions that he makes on these matters to be fairly sensible. The hon. Gentleman asked why British Rail does not improve the Drain. That is the one line that the Government want to privatise, even though it is the only line that ran during the strike last week. Schemes to improve the Drain do not meet the Government's 8 per cent. criteria. British Rail will tell him that privately, and that is why it struggles along with 1940s rolling stock on that line.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why British Rail does not open new railway lines. The Minister, the boy wonder in the Department of Transport and the lone survivor of the purge of the past few days, demands that market forces shall prevail. The new Secretary of State, whose father, like mine, was a platelayer, will have to come up with some better ideas than his number two, the whizz kid, has.
  If the whizz kid prevails, misery will prevail for the constituents of those Conservative Members who have had so many sensible things to say this evening. They are sensible indeed when one considers the contribution of the hon. Member for Northfield—the motorist's friend, the railway's enemy, the ever-ambitious and, I hope, permanent Back Bencher.
  12.51 am
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is never overly keen to give me my full 10 minutes, in case I prevail over his arguments.
  I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of railway matters and Government policy, should be wrong about the Waterloo and City line. In the subsidised railway sector we do not demand that new projects show an 8 per cent. rate of return. We demand that the case for investment should be the most economic, taking into account the alternative of doing nothing. Where there is old rolling stock which is difficult to maintain and unreliable, British Rail could put forward a good case for reinvestment. I am expecting such a proposal to be made shortly for the Waterloo and City line.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on securing the debate this evening and giving us the opportunity to have this interesting discussion. He began by saying that he thought that there was little difference between the National Union of Railwaymen and the management in the recent dispute. I was sorry to hear him say that, because I thought that there was a difference—that the

  1315
  management was trying to run a railway service and was content to go through the recognised procedures for settling disputes on the railways, but that the NUR took the matter to strike action none the less, thus bringing the railway into disrepute and inconveniencing thousands of customers.
  The tribunal recommended an increase of 8·8 per cent. for clerical and supervisory staff when the Transport Salaried Staffs Association took its dispute to the tribunal. The other unions, including the NUR, refused to do so. British Rail offered 8·8 per cent. not just to clerical and supervisory staff but to all staff. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the TSSA accepted that offer. We then had to go through another two days of strike action before hearing now that the NUR is willing to accept that.
  During all that period the railway management has been trying to run the railway. It has provided the offer that was recommended by the tribunal. The management has always said that if strike action was called off it would be willing to discuss the other issue, which is the matter of the bargaining machinery. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, his senior colleague as transport spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition all know that for the past 10 days the NUR has put itself in an extraordinary position. The British public has known perfectly well that the NUR has had nothing left to strike about, even given that there was any cause for the strike in the first place.
  I will go further and reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield that the record of the British Railways Board over the past five years is a good yardstick by which to judge it, and the industry is in better shape now than ever before. It is carrying more people; it is investing at record levels, and it is requiring 50 per cent. less subsidy than it did five years ago. That is a tribute to the leadership of the board and, granted, it is also a tribute to the men and women who work in the industry. It is very much to the credit of British Rail's chairman, Sir Robert Reid, a career railwayman of outstanding dedication who deserves the recognition not just of the Government but of the whole House for his services to the railway.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield suggested that there should be some form of contract for negotiation in public sector monopolies. Perhaps that matter should be considered. I remind my hon. Friend that procedures have been laid down for settling disputes on the railways and that the NUR chose not to follow them. The NUR did not want to go to arbitration. It claimed that it could not discuss matters in the tribunal, although those matters could have been settled by the Railway Staffs National Tribunal, which is fully able to consider all aspects.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked whether I advocated that the men should take a pay cut. His remarks imply that people should automatically have pay rises above the rate of inflation—in other words, that there should be no reference to what the industry can afford and to what it can pay without harming its competitive position, and no reference to the effect that a pay rise might have on the number of people the industry can employ, on the rest of the economy or on inflation. I can remember exactly where such thinking led 12 or 13 years ago.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South then decided—rather extraordinarily—to launch what was, I take it, an
  1316
  attack on the non-maintenance of escalators. But as there is also industrial action targeted on the escalators by the engineers who maintain them, I ask the hon. Gentleman to say that he regards the action as wrongly targeted. It puts people to great inconvenience and, theoretically at least, could have implications for safety. It is exactly the sort of industrial action that ought to be condemned.
  Mr. Spearing: My response is the same as that of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). Would it not have been sensible, however, if officers at King's Cross and elsewhere had made it clear that defects in the escalators were due to industrial action and not to bad management?
  Mr. Portillo: Perhaps so, but I think that the hon. gentleman agrees with me that it is deplorable when industrial action leads to such an important part of the system being unavailable to the public.
  The hon. Gentleman then launched several further attacks. He said that there was no planning and proceeded to attack every plan that we have, including the central and east London rail studies. He then attacked the idea that developers should be asked to contribute to the east London rail study, as though it was necessarily better to invest taxpayers' money than to persuade the commercial sector—the profit-making entrepreneurs—to contribute to the line.
  The hon. Gentleman then complained that there would be only five platforms at Waterloo and four at King's Cross for the Channel tunnel service, ignoring the fact that the Channel tunnel service consists of no more than two railway lines. It seems to me that a ration of nine platforms to two railway lines is generous, and it is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that if matters were planned carefully, we should end up with more platforms than that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has become a noteworthy contributor to railways debates recently. He criticised the fact that there was no planned network. If I worked in British Rail, I should not be encouraged towards planning a national network by the attitude shown towards the proposals in Kent. Those must have been very discouraging. There are enormous difficulties in this country in trying to build new railway lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the planned line as miserable and under-protected, but the proposal contains £500 million-worth of environmental protection. My hon. Friend can travel the continent without finding a line with that level of proposed investment for environmental protection.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) should be aware that we are likely to see proposals for investment in the Waterloo and City line in the way that I have described, and there is also a programme of platform lengthening under way with plans for Kent, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said, desperately needs rail improvements.
  Recently there has been an enormous expansion in investment in the railways and the Government have been very pleased to see that happen. However, the success of the railways in future will depend on their reliability and their attractiveness to the public. It is highly regrettable that recently the railways have provided such a very poor advertisement of their reliability to the British public.

  Latin America
  1.1 am
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: It is my pleasure to lead this debate about Britain's relations with Latin America, a region with which we have long historic and sentimental ties with which all hon. Members will be familiar. We also have ties of interest involving economic, financial and trading links which to some extent developed around those historical ties. The historic ties give British exporters and traders a head start to develop those ties and links further. The economic links, in purely quantitative terms, are still very small in comparison with our links with other regions and countries, but they can be developed, especially if the debt problem can be resolved. No matter how small the links, the United Kingdom needs every profitable trading partner that it can get in the present economic circumstances.
  I wish to refer to two countries in particular which I believe are the most exciting countries in Latin America at the moment—Chile and Nicaragua. The juxtaposition of those two countries may appear strange and even somewhat bizarre but anyone considering the political processes in those countries at the moment, given the troubled pasts which they have had to overcome in recent years—each in their separate ways—cannot fail to be excited at the prospects.
  I recently had the pleasure of visiting Chile for the first time and returned full of a greater confidence and hope for that country's future than I could have imagined before my visit. It appears to me that the political process towards democracy in Chile is still proceeding smoothly. I do not think that there is any reason at this stage, given the way in which the Chilean people have organised themselves to reach this point, to be pessimistic about the culmination of that process at the end of this year.
  The temporarily troublesome constitutional reforms have been approved. They are not perfect or complete, but they provide a good basis on which to go forward. The opposition parties are united, and that is a key to the further development of democracy in that country. President Pinochet has been increasingly isolated since the referendum, and that is no small contributor to the progress towards democracy. Even the Right-wing elements who have not had to practise genuine politics in the past because they have been able to rely on a dictatorial regime are increasingly working within the system, organising themselves politically, and thinking about how to mobilise their point of view within a democratic framework. If matters proceed as smoothly as they appear to be at present, we can hope that in just a few years people will look back at the period of dictatorship as a horrible aberration in Chilean history which is shameful and embarrassing to the Chilean people.
  Great strengths are underpinning progress. One is the relative economic growth of Chile compared with other Latin American countries, which gives a happier context for progress to democracy. I will say another word about the economic context in a short while as it may not be so sound as it might at first appear. Perhaps the greatest strength—much greater than economic forces—is the spirit of the people, who did not cease to demand and cry out for democracy during the dictatorship. Something which was new to me and which struck me quite forcefully in Chile was the history of the technocratic approach
  1318
  which imbues much of the professional classes, the middle classes to some extent, and the civil servants working within the political system. The technocratic or professional ethos has strong historical roots.
  Despite all the acts of oppression for which the dictatorship was responsible during its rule, there was a remarkable absence of petty financial corruption which can reach quite large amounts in Latin American countries. That was most clear in the dying months of the regime when privatisation measures were rushed through before the introduction of democracy and the will of the people again began to be predominant in Chilean society. One might deplore any such measures being rushed through before the new democratic era can begin and before people can express their wishes through the ballot box, but no matter how much one might deplore the privatisation scramble, it does not seem to be marked by obvious corruption of the kind that one might expect in a Latin American country.
  That great strength underlies and underpins the progress towards democracy, and it is most clear in the work of the electoral commission. I had the great pleasure of meeting the organiser of the recent referendum, who will also organise the next election. I was left in no doubt about the electoral commission's integrity and ability to conduct a democratic, fair and clean election in Chile, if it is allowed to do so.
  Despite those strengths, there are also problems to which I believe that our Government should be paying attention. Some of the problems are internal—for example, the difficulty that a new democratic Government in Chile will face in reconciling the need for stability in the new political framework with the satisfaction of social demands. Unions have been oppressed and hounded to a disgraceful extent, but they will find their voice in the new democratic context and the Chilean Government will have to reconcile that with the need to maintain stability.
  There will be the perceived problem concerning those responsible for human rights violations, but here again the distinctive character of Chilean political culture will come to the rescue. To some extent, the Pinochet regime in the past has been able to cover human rights abuses with a veil of legality and thus has exploited respect for the legal process which exists in Chile. It is that very respect for the legal process—that tradition of legality—which will be the undoing of those who were responsible for the abuses in the past as the legal system in Chile takes its course unhindered by those who wish to cover up past abuses.
  There will be problems, too, in the new political framework after democracy. There are questions hanging over the readiness of those on the far Right, who have had a clear run for the past decade and a half, to reconcile themselves not just to the outcome of democracy in Chile, but to the full vigour of democracy in Chile.
  The biggest problem will be one of economics, which all Latin American countries face. There has been talk of a Chilean miracle. I have already referred to the relative growth in Chile compared with other countries. We should not be led into thinking that somehow Chile has reached the same level of economic take-up as the tiger economies of south-east Asia. That clearly is not the case. Chile is still very much dependent on the world economy. Though it has benefited nationally as an economy in a period of relative world growth, it could just as easily suffer if there is a period of relative stagnation. That is why it is

  1319
  important for the prospects of democracy in Chile that steps be taken to solve the debt problem which, in common with every other Latin American country, Chile still faces.
  The British Government's policy towards Chile in these times should be to encourage the progress that has already been made. They should applaud it, welcome it and discourage utterly any thoughts of regression or backsliding after the election. Unfortunately, however, we do not gain much encouragement from the Government's handling of other matters—for instance, their rapid embrace of China so shortly after the massacre in Tiananmen square. The Government's attitude sends out entirely the wrong message. I hope that the Chilean military, having witnessed the British Government's spineless response to China, will receive a message from this debate that the same will not he tolerated in Chile after the elections.
  The biggest problem facing Chile, like all Latin American countries, is its debt problem. It is no use pretending that the solution to the problem will not cost the western economies money. The debt problem is common among Latin American countries. Brazil has perhaps the most severe debt problem, amounting to £110 billion, and in terms of its gross national product is expected to pay back three times as much as Germany after the first world war. That is intolerable and unfair.
  Nicaragua, too, has severe economic problems, although its achievements since the revolution have been truly momentous, as anyone who has visited it can attest. Its most notable achievements have been in the social realm, literacy, public health and democratic politics, which are sometimes not appreciated by the Governments here and in Washington. One has only to compare Nicaraguan society with other central American states to realise how open and democratic it is. Some people like to tell stories of newspapers being closed temporarily and of people being imprisoned temporarily, but we must remember that Nicaragua is or has been at war with a foreign invader. When Britain faced a similar military threat in the last war, we locked up our Oswald Mosleys. Such occurrences must be understood, if not always applauded.
  The British Government's attitude to Nicaragua has been truly miserable and grudging, and it is a further example of their deplorable overseas aid record. Their grudging attitude was exemplified by the humiliating reception that President Ortega was given at Downing street. Perhaps "humiliating" is too strong—it would be more accurate to say that the reception was intended to be humiliating. The fact that the Nicaraguan revolution had survived the United States' attacks for years and that its president was received by the United States' foremost ally showed that President Ortega and the Nicaraguan people had triumphed.
  Travelling in Latin America, one finds that almost everyone of every political shade is disaffected with the British Government's attitude to the region. Whether Right-wing or Left-wing, they all feel that the United Kingdom is throwing away a heritage of good will which could be put to good use. If we listened to our interests and best instincts rather than to Washington, we could develop a policy towards that region which would be more rational and humane.
  1.19 am
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on joining us at this late hour to talk about the important subject of foreign affairs in general and Latin America in particular. I hope that it will be a pleasure for him, as it is for us. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on giving us the opportunity for this debate.
  This is our second debate on the subject and it is becoming something of an annual fixture. As the chairman of the all-party Latin America committee, I greatly welcome that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is its excellent secretary. It gives some of us the opportunity, whatever the hour, once a year to recognise the important historical, cultural, trading and political links which have existed between the United Kingdom and Latin America for two centuries. We all recognise that in recent decades those links have fallen away. We particularly lament the decline in trade and applaud the efforts of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, Canning house and individual firms. We hope that British industry will come increasingly to understand that Latin America is by no means entirely as the media portray it. Those of us with knowledge of Latin America lament the wholly woeful and misleading image created by the extremely small handful of British journalists who concentrate on the region. I could give several recent examples, but in view of the time and the encouraging number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall forbear.
  Latin America has serious problems. The hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the debt problem. I hope that the Brady plan, which has been given another impetus recently, will lead to progress, but it will not be easy. The problem is of a different order and character from, for example, the debt problems of sub-Saharan Africa, on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken such an impressive and encouraging initiative. We cannot take a similar initiative in Latin America because the context is different. We need to collaborate on the debt problem and I hope that the Brady plan will show us the way forward.
  We are collaborating on drugs. It is a two-way problem—the supply and demand of a market. We in the western world must recognise our heavy responsibility for creating the demand. If there were no demand in our societies, the problems associated with drug trafficking in the region would be greatly diminished or even removed. We need international co-operation, and I am glad that the Government are showing the way forward.
  Sadly, too, we share problems of violence and terrorism. A number of countries in Latin America have struggled, on the whole successfully, to develop and promote democracy against a background of violence unknown to us even in Northern Ireland.
  Another area in which increasing collaboration between us and Latin America is important is in respect of ecology and the rain forests. My right hon. Friend who has been elevated to the position of Secretary of State for the Environment pointed the way in his most successful and last overseas visit as Minister for Overseas Development, with his agreement with Brazil making progress in that area.
  Those are the problems, but the successes in Latin America should also be recognised, especially the

  1321
  development and progress of democracy. Argentina has recently had elections and for the first time in 60 years one democratically elected Government handed over to another. In December there will be elections in Chile, and the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke of his impression of the evolution of the democratic process in Chile. There will be elections in Peru in July. President Stroessner has departed the scene in Paraguay. Uruguay has recovered its traditional stability, and even in Mexico the PRI—the Partido Revolucionario Institucional—which has for long in effect been the country's one party is now having to yield and allow alternatives in some of the provinces.
  Those are important changes, but the change on which I wish to concentrate is that which is occurring in Argentina, in view of the important effect on this country. Mr. Carlos Menem frightened many people, including many Argentinians, in his election campaign. He is a Peronist and as yet nobody knows what his utterances mean in terms of political reality. Some of his campaign rhetoric, including his talk of shedding blood to recover the Falkland Islands, created the worst fears in many of us who wish to see a stable and prosperous Argentina. As things have turned out so far, however—I accept that only a brief time has elapsed—the prospects look different. He has announced courageous policies to tackle the extraordinarily difficult economic problems that he inherited and has made appointments which have surprised everyone and appear to augur well. Sadly, he suffered the sudden death of Senor Roig, the Finance Minister, only days after he was appointed, but another executive has been appointed who seems determined to carry out the kind of policies of which Conservative Members would approve—policies which have demonstrated their efficacy wherever in the world they have been applied. The prospects in Argentina domestically, against a hugely threatening backdrop, are far more encouraging than one would have dared hope before the change of presidency.
  Another area of change which affects us deeply and directly is the apparent change of policy of President Menem, his Foreign Minister and his Government in regard to the Falkland Islands, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will give an idea of the reaction of the British Government to the developments because, as I say, in the election campaign Mr. Menem spoke of recovering the islands, if necessary, "by blood and fire."
  Since then the change of tone has been absolute. The Foreign Minister, Domingo Cavallo, has said in an interview:
  "Our objective is the re-establishment of full relations. The idea is to find a formula so that each side can preserve the rights it has—or believes it has—in the islands. In that way the advantages that are gained from the re-establishment of relations do not prejudice either of the two countries in their rights over the islands."
  Other statements in the same vein have been made by the Argentina Foreign Minister and by the Argentine President. Indeed, the President's response to the message of good will from our Prime Minister was also positive. The House will recall that it was in significant contrast to the response of President Alfonsin at the time of his inauguration in December 1983, which verged on the churlish. President Menem has shown a different tone, so the spotlight returns to us and to our response.
  1322
  We are talking about practical improvements. I accept that the British Government's record is good. They have made a series of forward gestures in opening trade and being easier about visas, but there is now a distinct and new atmosphere which we must seize and of which we must take full advantage. I understand the concerns that such statements cause in the Falkland Islands, but the long-term interests of the islanders can be guaranteed only by a different set of relationships from those obtaining at present. The people of this country will come to expect a positive move forward.
  Six months after the 1982 war, I was fortunate enough—if that is the appropriate word—to be invited to a foundry in my constituency where the war memorial to be erected in Port Stanley was being cast. It was to list the names of the 250 of our men who fell in the Falkland Islands conflict. Over that weekend, I had the privilege of meeting about 25 per cent. of the next of kin of those who lost their lives in the war. If there was one sentiment common to all those families—to the widows, the mothers and the fathers to whom I spoke—it was, "I recognise that my son died in a just cause and that he was doing his duty as a member of the regular forces, but I look to you, as politicians, so to change the position that no others need to die in that cause—there must be another way."
  I believe that there is such a way, and we must not miss the opportunity that is opening up, although I recognise that we must be cautious. My hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who usually speaks on Latin America for the Opposition, have produced reactions that were on the cool and even negative side. New thinking is needed.
  I close with what used to be a fairly well-known Shakespearian quotation but one which is less heard these days:
  "There is a tide in the affairs of men,
  Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
  Omitted, all the voyage of their life
  Is bound in shadows and in miseries.
  On such a full sea are we now afloat,
  And we must take the current when it serves,
  Or lose our ventures."
  This is such a venture. The re-establishment of a sensible relationship with Argentina on the Falkland Islands to preserve the interests of the islanders is an opportunity that we must not lose.
  1.34 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be as brief as I can as this debate can last for only one and a half hours and others wish to speak. Unfortunately, the subject is yet again being debated in the middle of the night, although there is something rather special about debating Latin America before 3 am as it usually comes up at around 5 am. The debate is valuable, if only to demonstrate that one of the problems with British policy towards Latin America is that there is no policy—just a series of decisions which may or may not be made on national or economic issues. There is very little overall strategy.
  I do not wish to get involved in the discussion about the Falklands, but I must say that I opposed the Falklands war and I never want there to be another one. I suspect that Conservative Members may one day realise that the fortress Falklands policy, which has so far cost £3·5 billion and will cost us considerably more, maintains only a state

  1323
  of armed neutrality in the south Atlantic. They know that at some stage there will have to be a move towards real peace, if only to avoid spending such ridiculously large sums of money, which are designed to promote the image of the Prime Minister leading the country to a great national victory when in fact she did not take the opportunities for peace that were open to her at the time.
  Destruction of the tropical rain forests, and the pollution that goes with it, is extremely serious because the world requires large areas of forest cover to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, which sustains life. We all know that what happens to the Amazonian rain forest is crucial to the rest of the world. Any encouragement to countries in the Amazon basin to conserve the rain forest and to use it in a sustainable way so that it is a permanent resource for the world rather than something that is pillaged, as is currently happening, is greatly to be welcomed.
  I recognise the deep sensitivities involved in other countries lecturing Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Guyana and Suriname on the preservation of the rain forest. President Garcia of Peru asked, cleverly, how it is that western Europe, having destroyed all its own forests, is now lecturing them about conserving theirs. That is a fair point but, like others, he has also considered the economic circumstances which lead to rain forests being destroyed. The Governments and peoples of the countries in the area do not necessarily want to destroy the rain forests—it is simply a matter of economics. We have a great deal to answer for in that respect. Through European money, International Monetary Fund money and particularly World Bank money, much destruction has been financed to provide cheap minerals for multinational capital elsewhere.
  There has to be a change of attitude and an understanding of the strong link between the economic policies pursued by the world's financial institutions and damage to the environment in grossly indebted countries. One cannot separate the two. I hope that there will be continuing pressure on the World Bank to adopt even better environmental policies and that support for the protection of the rain forests and the people who live in them will continue. The construction of the trans-Amazonian highway and railway and mining schemes involve the murder of Indian people in their thousands. We must do all that we can to ensure that our policies preserve the rain forest and make it a viable proposition for all time. At present, we are destroying plant and animal species by the hour, and thousands of acres of forest by the day. If this continues, it will be to the cost of all of us.
  Only a short time ago the House debated the Antarctic Minerals Bill. Chile and Argentina both have substantial claims in the Antarctic. I hope that they do not ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, which will pave the way for the investigation and, I believe, exploitation of minerals in Antarctica. If we are serious about preserving the world's environment, we must look at equally sensitive ecosystems existing in an entirely different climate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) spoke at length about the growth of debt in Latin America. It is indeed frightening that around 1960 Latin America was not an indebted continent but 29 years later it is deep in debt—not because it is intrinsically infertile or over-populated, nor because it cannot produce food or does not contain many able and brilliant people,
  1324
  but as a result of a world economic system which seeks to take considerable resources out of the continent and to repatriate large profits from multinational capital. As a result, the poorest people in the poorest countries are suffering the effects of debt.
  When Peru attempted to limit its debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of its gross national product, the world's banking institutions conspired to home in and prevent it from carrying out that policy, insisting that Peru accept IMF conditions which it may or may not negotiate in the future. Exactly the same conditions operate elsewhere—they are always linked with what is euphemistically called economic restructuring, but is in fact our good old friend Tory economic policy writ large, involving cuts in public expenditure, large-scale privatisation of industries and damage to the living standards of the poorest people in some of the poorest countries of the world.
  If we are genuinely concerned about those people, we must come up with something better than either the Baker plan or the Brady plan and start talking in terms of improving commodity prices, limiting the repatriation of profits by multinational companies and writing off and rescheduling debt. Otherwise the eternal cycle of debt, poverty, further debt and further poverty will go on and on. The Brady plan is aimed at privatising countries out of debt, but it will not work because it merely transfers political control to those who have pushed that policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles mentioned Chile. Obviously, no one will be happier than I shall when democracy has returned to Chile, when there is genuine freedom of speech, when trade unions can operate openly and freely and the police do not have the power to gun down, tear-gas and arrest people for exercising their democratic rights. I also very much hope to see the end of General Pinochet. We should give the new constitution a cautious welcome, although it is not completely democratic. Inbuilt powers still exist for Pinochet and his successor and for the armed forces, and it cannot be called a democratic constitution according to the European model. We should also remember the thousands who lost their lives following the murder of President Allende in 1973, and those who sought refuge and asylum in other parts of the world. I hope that the nightmare in Chile is ending, but I suspect that in its death throes the military dictatorship will get up to all sorts of awful things in the next few months.
  My final point on national matters in Latin America concerns El Salvador. I understand that soon the Government will welcome the ARENA president of El Salvador, President Cristiani, to Britain. I hope that when he arrives the Minister concerned will raise with him the matter of the proposed legislation which is designed to destroy popular movements in El Salvador and covers the military encirclement of trade union offices, the continuing growth of death squads, continuing violence, the disappearance of people who support human rights and democracy and the corruption, if that is the right word, of what remains of the land reform programme in El Salvador. Until there is social justice in El Salvador and in the rest of Latin America, there will never be real peace. I hope that the Government will address those problems when they welcome President Cristiani to this country.
  I hope that the Government also recognise that the American approach to El Salvador is causing the problems. America pours in more military aid than it gives

  1325
  to any other country with the exception of Israel. El Salvador is impoverished, a fifth of its population consists of internal or external refugees, and most of its people live in the worst possible conditions. Yet despite those facts, all the American aid goes to support the country's armed forces. I want to see real peace and democracy in El Salvador, but the realisation of those hopes is not consistent with the amount of military aid being poured in by the United States. Until the social injustices are put right, there will never be real peace in El Salvador.
  1.46 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for initiating the debate. He and I represented the House in a delegation from the all-party British Latin American group which went to Chile in May. The hon. Gentleman played a significant and fair-minded part in that delegation. I welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I know that he will enjoy the traditional warm good will that Latin Americans show to Britain and I wish him all success in his task.
  I hope that the debate, which follows the one held last year and which was the first for 38 years on the subject, demonstrates a growing revival of interest by the House in Latin America. Britain was the godmother of Latin American independence and many regard Canning, the Foreign Secretary of the day, as the godfather. Much of the infrastructure of Latin America's economies, its transport and banking systems and industrial heritage were put in place by Britain. We have a long history of co-operation rather than domination in the continent, which provides a good base for strengthening our relationships.
  Perhaps the greatest problem in Latin America for us rests in Argentina. The scars of the Falklands crisis are still too vivid to be forgotten, and we are in the absurd situation in which otherwise normal relations between our two countries are in suspense, despite historic ties of blood, commerce and culture which go back more than two centuries. Argentina is again a democracy, and for the first time for many years we have seen one democratically elected president taking over from another.
  Despite the many blood curdling aspects of his election campaign, Carlos Menem is showing good signs in the direction of a resolution of the problems which currently underlie relations between our two countries. We should take encouragement from President Menem's statement about the Falklands, in which he said:
  "Sovereignty is a subject which we, the Argentinians, are never going to renounce—and I do not think the United Kingdom will do so either."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) pointed out, Argentina's new Foreign Minister is already looking at ways in which a dialogue can be opened up rapidly between our two countries. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take full advantage of that window of opportunity to open up talks and achieve a normalisation of diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations.
  When Latin Americans talk of Britain, they say that one of the principal contributions that we have made to the world is that of democratic institutions. They hold this place in the highest regard. Over the past few years, almost
  1326
  all the republics of Latin America have returned to democracy, some from subjugation by exceptionally brutal military regimes. Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and others are struggling to foster responsible representative democracy against the background of horrendous economic difficulties.
  One of the principal problems lies with the restoration of effective democratic parties following the destruction wreaked by military dictatorship. That is particularly true of Chile, where the Right-wing parties have suffered notably more than those of the Left. I wonder whether we, as representatives of the "mother of party democracy", are applying sufficient resources in this area in which we have such an impressive wealth of practical experience to contribute.
  Many countries in the region deserve congratulation on their transition to democracy. The latest example has been Chile, which has astonished the world with its smooth process through constitutional referenda towards the presidential and congressional elections due to be held in December. Despite the reservations that we may have about their brutal record on human rights, President Pinochet and his regime deserve recognition for the determined way in which they have led the country back to democracy. Perhaps the greatest endowment that they will bestow on the restored democracy will be the relatively most healthy economy in Latin America. The test of that democracy will be whether its new policies can be compatible with continuing and growing economic prosperity. Argentina under Raul Alfonsin is a bitter warning to Latin American democrats of the penalties for irresponsible policies and failure to take the necessary decisions.
  A number of Latin American countries have still to return to democracy. Nicaragua last voted in 1984, in elections which were delayed and then staged under conditions so open to poll rigging that the main opposition alliance boycotted them. The Government of Nicaragua are committed to elections next February, and the opposition have agreed to contest them, but will the Sandinistas, with their record of repression, political prisoners and censorship, give a fair wind to the elections? What democratic guarantees will be on offer? Independent oversight of the poll and the freedoms of campaigning and the press must be upheld.
  We all know what happened as a result of the May election in Panama. Haiti has reverted to yet another military dictatorship. Paraguay has recently returned to democracy, but we must never forget that the recent election there was held under Stroessner's distorted electoral law and voters list. Nor should we forget that President Rodriguez was a close associate of his dictatorial predecessor. We must make it clear that we continue to have considerable reservations about all those countries.
  A growing interest in Latin America is centred around the real threat to the rain forest in the Brazilian and Peruvian Amazonia. We have a major part to play in view of our technical expertise, which is particularly manifested in the Oxford Forestry Institute and at Kew. Experts in tropical rain forests, such as John Hemmings and Ghillean Prance, have much to offer to enable an economically viable but ecologically preserved Amazonia to prosper. This is why we must welcome the recent agreement concluded with Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), which brings much of this expertise to bear in co-operation with the Brazilians. It is

  1327
  the first agreement of its sort and contrasts well with the rhetoric emanating from the United States and elsewhere which so inflames the Brazilian public and political opinion.
  We should speak out also against the international desecrators of the rain forest. We rightly take an interest in British companies which perhaps inadvertently have Brazilian subsidiaries and affiliates which commit environmental excesses, and we should speak out against destructive exploiters of the rain forest. I think in particular of the Japanese exploiters of hardwood, who have already wreaked havoc in Burma and Borneo and are reported to be planning the rape of the Brazilian state of Acre along a transport route through Peru.
  British trade with South America has had a sad record in recent decades. Even now, our share of Latin American imports has risen to only 3 per cent. I note the significant increase in British trade missions in recent years and the increasing number of Ministers making visits, but one visitor who would make a major impact is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Government's great successes in transforming the British economy, vastly increasing productivity and pioneering privatisation have excited the interest of Latin Americans. A visit by the architect of that transformation would focus interest on the potential for business with Britain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note that and consider enticing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with the prospect of a visit to São Paulo, Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro, to Colombia and Venezuela, and to Chile after the restoration of democracy.
  We also need visits by many more business men to the region to foster British exports and investment. The great Latin American cities provide sophistication and comfort to rival any in Europe. It is not a discomfort prospect. Business men will need to gain a knowledge of the languages, which are Spanish and Portuguese, and although it is not the subject of the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the importance of those languages. Spanish, after all, is the most spoken international language after English.
  The debate has necessarily been short. We spend little enough time in the House on foreign affairs, and most of that is on European affairs with a little on the Commonwealth, but we must never forget our friends in Latin America and the outstanding potential of a region whose GDP is greater than that of Africa, the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia put together. The opportunities for us are immense if we do not neglect that continent.
  1.58 am
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I shall start by sketching a little history of Latin America. If time had permitted, I should have gone back to the Incas and perhaps even earlier. Unfortunately, time does not permit, so I will go back only about 200 years to the period when the great liberator, Simon Bolivar, was hard at work getting rid of the Spanish yoke. There was Bolivar in the north and San Martin in the south, and we should not forget the help that the British Government of the day gave those two liberators. It should not be forgotten that British troops fought beside the liberator. Nor should we forget the reverence in which Bolivar is still held. I
  1328
  remember well crossing a square in Caracas where there was a splendid equestrian statue of the liberator. A man was on duty, and if people attempted to carry parcels past the statue or to sit on the steps around its base, the man would advance blowing a whistle to drive them away. Could we find such an example of reverence for a great national figure of the past?
  We have heard a great deal about Argentina. I have reservations about President Menem because I have strong reservations about Peronism, which seems to be rather an unpleasant creed. None the less, we must wish him well and every success with his beautiful country, which has the potential to be one of the most prosperous in the world. Let us hope that he gets it right.
  I continue to skate northwards very rapidly, to Nicaragua. It is my belief that the United States Government got it wrong, and that the Somoza regime was particularly unpleasant and should not have been bolstered and kept going. America should have taken the longer-term view by getting rid of Somoza and encouraging Nicaragua to take the road to prosperity rather than repression.
  Other hon. Members have touched on the Falklands. I have just received the latest issue of the Falkland Islands Newsletter, which mentions Peronism and the fact that it directs that
  "Argentine school children be taught from infancy that `The Malvinas' are theirs by right so that they actually believe it."
  That is not the way forward. Good will is needed on both sides, not that sort of propaganda.
  I spoke briefly of Britain's historical contacts with Latin America. Even to this day, the English are much liked in south America.
  Mr. Corbyn: So are the British.
  Mr. Summerson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely correct, particularly bearing in mind that Admiral Cochrane was a Scot.
  To this day, the British are well liked in south America. Twelve years ago, I spent six months travelling around south America, and as soon as the local people discovered that I was not "Americano" or "Yankee" but "Inglese", their attitude changed. There is a great fund of good will for the British in south America, and we should not throw it away but develop it.
  2.3 am
  Mr. Donald Anderson: By leave of the House, even at this late hour I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing the debate, and welcome the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
  As other hon. Members have observed, Latin America is increasingly at the margin of British interest. The total value of our exports to Latin America in 1987 was less than that of those to Norway. In the past 30 years, Britain's share of Latin American imports has fallen by two thirds, and that country's share of British imports by four fifths. Britain makes a relatively insignificant contribution in terms of services to Latin America, whose total share of British aid is less than 3 per cent.
  To most British people, Latin America is an unknown continent with a negative image of debt, rain forest

  1329
  destruction, poverty, drugs and dictatorship, but in the past decade there have been extensive moves to democracy in Latin America. One thinks of Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina—and this year we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the overthrow of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) properly referred.
  Elected Governments in those countries are increasingly under pressure as democracy, sadly, fails to deliver in economic terms. A regrettable feature of centre Governments is that they are increasingly losing out to the extreme Left or extreme Right—and the end of that road may be a a return to military dictatorships, as people yearn for the stability offered by military Governments of the past.
  We must constantly remind ourselves that democracy is not just a matter of constitutional structures but of human and social rights. A democracy that cannot deliver is a shaky democracy. In particular, one now sees problems in Peru, Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina.
  The debt problem has been mentioned. The net outflow of resources from Latin America last year was in excess of $28·9 billion and the flow of investment to Latin America was only $4·3 billion. There are no clear signs of growth and inflation is high. One asks whether democracy can find an easy route in such circumstances.
  What role can Britain usefully play, given the decline in our influence and commitment to Latin America? The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who has an extensive knowledge of the region, bewailed the few British journalists in the area. He might also have mentioned the decline in language studies, other than French, in Britain.
  Save for the peculiar bilateral difficulties of the Falklands and Argentina, our policy towards Latin America will increasingly be seen in a European context, particularly because of the important historic and cultural links between the Iberian countries. I do not suggest that there should be an exclusive relationship, but that special relationship in the past will have to be addressed.
  What, then, are the specific and general areas of impact on the United Kingdom which are worth recording? The debt problem was much stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The foreign currency spent on servicing debt clearly reduces growth and the possibility of imports from the First world. Short-term emergency packages are insufficient. As the hon. Member for Wycombe stressed, the Baker plan did not work, but the Brady plan for debt reduction at least has some greater hope of working. Are the British Government planning any initiative to reach a lasting settlement? I see that not in the context of bailing out those banks—particularly the American banks, but not exclusively so—which in the 1960s and 1970s saw it as their job to lend. Certainly the structure and composition of the debt is different from the public debt which applies in Africa south of the Sahara.
  The drugs problem has also been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is significant that 40 per cent. of the cocaine seized in Europe last year came from Colombia and 20 per cent. from Ecuador. What co-operation are the Government receiving from Latin American countries on the drugs problem and to what extent are the Government prepared to assist in measures such as crop substitution?
  1330
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned the destruction of the rain forests. The Opposition welcome the initiatives of the Secretary of State for the Environment in his previous incarnation as Minister for Overseas Development and we hope that he will carry that same commitment to his wider responsibilities in his new Department. In particular, we note his pressure on British companies which operate in the area, such as Shell in Brazil, following allegations of their supplying fuel to mineral prospectors in Bua Vista in the north of Brazil and elsewhere.
  It is in human rights that the Government have had the greatest failure in the past decade, in particular in their non-intervention when so many Latin American Governments tolerated death squads and vigilantes who co-operated with the security forces. I recall that in 1983, in the port of Valparaiso in Chile, on the 11th anniversary of the bombing of the Moneda palace the British ambassador was handing over a warship to the Chileans, while, in contrast, the French ambassador had completely immersed himself in human rights problems, co-operating with others. Britain had resumed diplomatic relations with Chile ostensibly to make representations on human rights after the torture and maltreatment of Dr. Sheila Cassidy and the death of William Beausire, a British subject, but despite the purported reasons for establishing diplomatic relations it was clear that trade was the main motive.
  Mr. Corbyn: And military co-operation.
  Mr. Anderson: And military co-operation, as my hon. Friend says. To add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles has already said about Chile, we rejoice that Chile now seems firmly on the road to democracy, although that is no thanks to the British Government who seemed happy and at home with dictators.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to the Falklands and Argentina. Clearly, circumstances have changed since the election of President Menem, who has given many signals that he wishes to enter into a dialogue with Britain. In that regard, may I ask the Minister whether it is true that the Argentine Government have offered to meet the British Government in Brasilia—as Brazil acts as agent on our behalf—and, if so, what has been the response?
  After the war we had established the principle of no change by military intervention and held, and could have acted from, the high ground. Unfortunately, there has been a substantial slippage since then because of the failure of both Governments to respond to the situation. It is wrong that countries which have had such a long history of friendship should fail to move, but at least the way now seems open for some positive development. As the hon. Member for Wycombe will know, a high-powered delegation of congressmen from Argentina will be here for the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in September, which may afford an opportunity for discussions.
  Back in Chile, the dark night of Pinochet is almost over. The consensus agreement on constitutional changes agreed between the Chilean Government and Opposition last month suggests that progress towards democracy is now almost unstoppable. I hope that the British Government will help in the process, as the elections promise to be fair and there is every expectation of an Opposition victory. I hope that the British Government

  1331
  will in no way welcome Pinochet to this country in view of his background and in particular his treatment of British subjects.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned our major concerns about El Salvador. Our real concern is that the Government will seek to encourage ARENA and make it respectable. Clearly, the United States was mightily embarrassed by the rigged elections in Salvador. By their past attitudes and by the death squads, those in ARENA have proved themselves to be a bunch of murderers, although it is fair to say that President Cristiani has been the respectable face of a very unrespectable group. Is it true that the Government propose to invite President Cristiani to visit Britain in the autumn, and if the visit goes ahead, will he be accompanied by Mr. d'Aubuisson? It would be a disgraceful blot on the British record if d'Aubuisson, who is the real power behind the throne, were welcome at either No. 10 or the Palace, or both.
  The Government now appear to be seeking in every way to make ARENA, which has always been linked with the death squads, acceptable. They should surely draw the line at welcoming d'Aubuisson, who a previous American ambassador described as "a pathological killer". Are we making representations to El Salvador about the increasing human rights abuses and the newly published programme for changes in the penal law mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North?
  Nicaragua has been perhaps the greatest victim of Thatcherite ideology over the years. Is it not now time, after 10 years of blockade and isolation, to help restore peace and to rebuild Nicaragua's shattered economy and resume direct British aid to that country?
  Sadly, to a large extent Latin America is marginalised in comparison with the grand role that our people played in the area in the last century. If that role is currently marginal, it is potentially very important. I have referred to the impact of debt and drugs. I hope that our foreign policy towards the region as a whole will be less ideological in future and more oriented towards human rights and development. I hope that it is less based on the Reagan-Thatcher axis which has done so much harm to the area's development potential and particularly to that of central America. The time is now set for the tone of our policy to change in response to the signals from that continent.
  2.15 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Foreign Office is not noted as a Department that frequently brings legislation before the House. It can fairly be said that it is not a Department whose responsibilities frequently feature as subjects for debate. Therefore, I am more than somewhat surprised to find that before my second day—or more accurately, my third night—in my new post, I have not only taken a Bill through all its stages in the House, but I find myself replying to a debate. I welcome these opportunities. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for the kind welcome that they extended to me on my new responsibility——
  Mr. Anderson: In spite of the hour.
  Mr. Corbyn: Or because of it.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Despite of or because of, I am not choosy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham initiated a debate on our relations with Latin America this time last year—almost to the day—he remarked that it was the first time for 38 years that the House had debated the subject. I am certainly pleased that we have returned to it after a briefer interval on this occasion, although the hour is rather similar. In view of my relatively short time in post, I hope that the House will understand if I necessarily speak with some diffidence on the subject.
  However, I can confirm that a lot has changed since last year's debate, much of that change being for the better. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), in her previous position as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, spoke of the continent's return to democracy. That welcome trend has continued and has gathered momentum. A series of presidential elections is in prospect in the region. It is easy to forget that 10 years ago most Latin American countries were dictatorships while most are now democracies. Even in those countries in which democracy is not yet fully established, notably Chile, there have been clear moves in the right direction. I know that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) recently visited Chile and I welcomed what he said as a result of the impressions that he gathered during his visit.
  Our relationships with the region are full of potential, as many hon. Members have said, but they have also moved forward. When he addressed Canning house in December last year, referring to relations with Latin America my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, the then Foreign Secretary, said:
  "now we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the period of neglect is over."
  Events since have borne him out. Quietly but continuously we have developed our relations with the region. British investment, always a major component of that relationship, has continued at high levels. We are a significant investor in Brazil. In 1988, investment flows from the United Kingdom made us the second largest foreign investor that year both in Venezuela and in Colombia. The region remains an important trading partner for us, even if, as hon. Members have said, our share of the market remains far lower than it should be.
  The degree of interest shown by the United Kingdom companies that attended the Foreign and Commonwealth Office-organised seminar on trade and investment in Latin America last May heartened all of us. More than ever, our message to the United Kingdom companies that have not yet discovered Latin America is to go and look. The opportunities are there, as has been stressed in the debate, and United Kingdom companies trading in Latin America are doing well. The Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry in London and our posts abroad stand ready to offer every assistance to those that do go and look. I accept that we could and should do better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has said.
  In other matters, too, our relationship has thickened. Hon. Members will be aware of the recent very successful visit to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Our co-operation with Latin American countries to combat the worldwide scourges of narcotics and terrorism has continued and intensified. I shall say more on those themes in a moment.

  1333
  Not surprisingly, Chile has frequently featured in this debate. The hon. Member for Western Isles referred to it as one of the most exciting countries in the region. I note the concerns that have been expressed, but Chile has a long history of democracy, and the British Government want to see that status fully restored. We have been encouraged by the progress that is now being made to that end and by the great sense of responsibility being demonstrated on all sides during this important political transition, and we wish it well. We will continue to give every encouragement to all those in Chile who aspire to democracy. Together with our partners in the Twelve, we look forward to working with a democratically elected Government, expected to assume office in March next year, following the general and presidential elections to be held in December this year.
  The success of the Chilean economy in recent years has been particularly notable. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred to that. It is certainly true that there has been sustained growth since 1983 of over 5 per cent. per year, substantial debt reduction, and an impressive diversification of exports. All the major political parties and presidential candidates are pledged not to alter the basic economic framework put in place by the present Chilean Government. Candidates' differing ideas on the social policy that a democratic Government should follow will be put to the vote in December, and it will be for the Chilean people themselves to decide. There will be plenty of scope for economic co-operation by Britain with the new Government when they are in place. The unified European Community market in 1992 will offer plenty of opportunities for trade which we would expect not only Chile but other Latin American countries to grasp.
  Let me now say a word about human rights in Chile, which have been referred to rather too often, one might think. Sadly, they continue to be abused in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, Latin America is no exception. The British Government's views on this matter are very clear, and we make no bones about putting our views squarely to the Governments concerned, including the Chilean Government, which we do frequently, as we do to the Colombian Government about the different problems in that country. We and our European Community partners have frequently made it plain that we are concerned about continuing abuses, not only in Chile, but wherever they occur, and we are not afraid to take a clear public stand, including in the United Nations. [Interruption.] I emphasise to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that we must also be ready to recognise real improvements. By doing that, we encourage the further improvements that we all want to see.
  I shall now cross the Andes to Argentina, which has also been mentioned by most of the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
  Hon. Members will have seen reports in the press of "a new approach" by the new Argentine Government on the Falklands. We have been struck by the new tone of official Argentine statements since the inauguration of President Menem. We certainly welcome the constitutional transfer of power through elections, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe rightly pointed out was for the first time in 60 years. We wish that new Government well. The
  1334
  full nature of the Argentine position is not yet clear. There have been numerous statements, not all entirely consistent with each other. But their approach seems designed to restore a more normal relationship with us, while putting the difficult issue of sovereignty on one side, which we welcome.
  We have consistently expressed our willingness to work for more normal relations by making progress on practical issues of potential benefit to both sides. I have in mind the removal of trade and financial restrictions and the restoration of air links and the establishment of contacts on fisheries, where we have important common interests in the conservation of fish stocks.
  I hope that we can look forward to a period of tangible achievement in our relations with Argentina. That is certainly our aim, and I hope that it is shared by the new Argentine Government.
  A number of hon. Members have asked about the reports of contacts with Argentina. I hope that they will understand that this is a very delicate matter and that they will not expect me to go into details at this stage. I cannot comment on the press reports, but hon. Members may rest assured that we will respond positively to any proposals, consistent with our commitment to the Falkland Islands.
  The debt problem has been generally recognised as very worrying, but, of course, it is not all gloom. On a more positive note, after lengthy negotiations, Mexico has reached an agreement with its commercial creditors, which we warmly welcome. We hope that that will make a major contribution to economic recovery in Mexico and to the successful implementation of the Brady plan.
  The Government are very concerned about the difficulties faced by many Latin American countries as a result of their heavy debt burdens, but it is important to remember that the majority of Latin America's debt is owed to the commercial banks, and arrangements for dealing with that debt must be primarily a matter for debtors and banks to negotiate between them.
  However, in Latin America, creditor Governments have made a substantial contribution towards debtors' external financing needs. That has been through both new lending from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and by rescheduling official debt in the Paris club, where countries are prepared to undertake the often difficult task of economic reform.
  Furthermore, the Government appreciate the importance of commercial debt reduction, and recognise that international financial institutions can play a useful facilitating role. We support the strengthened debt strategy for the highly indebted middle-income countries, known as the Brady plan. We endorsed it at the economic summit in Paris.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and the hon. Member for Islington, North raised the important matter of the rain forests and the environment. That has been fully debated twice this year in the House, but I recognise that there is an extraordinary degree of public interest in the issue at the moment. I mentioned earlier the successful trip to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his previous post as Minister for Overseas Development. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that as a concrete demonstration of the importance with which we view environmental problems in the region and of our interest in doing something effective to help. Perhaps less prominent have been the continuing difficulties of urban pollution in Latin

  1335
  American cities, which my right hon. Friend also looked at during his visit. Not surprisingly, there is great sensitivity in certain Latin American countries at anything that smacks of foreign interference in those affairs. My right hon. Friend said during his visit, and I repeat here, that
  "there is no intention whatsoever of interfering in sovereignty",
  Brazilian or other. We wish to help Latin American Governments to tackle those very difficult problems, and are glad to be able to put at their disposal our considerable expertise in the forestry sector. My right hon. Friend signed a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian Government during his visit, opening the way to just that sort of sensible, practical co-operation. Overseas Development Administration officials are now looking at specific ways in which we can help. We are in no doubt that this is a much more responsible approach to important issues than any calls for pressure to be put on Latin American Governments.
  Hon. Members mentioned the important subject of drugs. The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked about the co-operation that we receive. We have developed increasingly effective programmes of co-operation with Governments in the common struggle against drugs, including direct links between our police forces and Customs services. For obvious reasons, I would prefer not to give details of those links. We have provided radio equipment to police forces in several countries. At present we are negotiating anti-drugs agreements with Mexico, and my predecessor signed one in Brazil last November. We plan to host a conference on this most important subject next year.
  All hon. Members who contributed to the excellent debate mentioned the difficulties that Latin America faces. No one is more aware of those difficulties than the Government. We know that there is much work to be done in solving the problem of the region's external debt, and that democracy requires consolidation. It would be wrong to look only at the darker side of the region as a whole or our relations with Latin America.
  Latin America is almost unique in the world outside Europe in its widespread return to democracy, and its attachment to western values. I am hopeful that the region's economic difficulties will prove temporary. I have often heard that nobody who has been there can fail to be impressed by the region's potential and by the capabilities of its people. I am new to this job, but I am much looking forward to seeing for myself before too long the problems and opportunities that we have been discussing tonight.
  We mean it when we say that we value our relations with Latin America. Over past years, particularly over the past 12 months, we have established a particular momentum in those relations. We intend to continue to expand and to strengthen our links with a continent so close to our own in its culture and history.

  Green Field Sites (Development)
  2.32 am
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: However late and grey the hour, I welcome the opportunity to debate the continuing development on green field sites around towns and cities. In so doing, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his expanded duties in the planning sector. He will need all his skills as a steersman, boxer and umpire in this arena, to which he is no stranger, and I wish him -well. I am pleased and relieved to see that other hon. Members have stayed the course and are present to debate this important subject, late though it is.
  The issue is of vital concern to people all over Britain, but it is particularly acute in the south of England. A dominant London, a vigorous economy, rapidly developing job opportunities, attractive countryside and even a relatively benign climate combine to create an insatiable demand for new homes and other development in the countryside. That phenomenon is not new. Victorian and Edwardian suburbs bear witness to past demand. Ribbon development in the 1930s and the growth of boroughs such as Enfield, Bromley, Harrow and Woodford, and similar developments on the edge of other cities, show the strength of demand for homes built on green field sites in the years between the wars. They are a clear warning, as are many post-war developments, of how much acreage can be built on in one, two or three decades.
  Our framework of planning law was established to balance the demand for more and better housing in an attractive environment with the need to preserve the countryside from the character of towns. Despite this framework, however, a frightening amount of green field land is still built on every year. As Mark Twain reminded us long ago, there is not an unlimited supply of i his commodity. He was speaking of America. In Britain it is even more clearly the case. Many hon. Members from a multiplicity of constituencies are worried by that, but we are not blind to the need for new and better housing, nor to the desire of families for an improved environment.
  The debate is about two issues—how to limit the pace of green field development and at the same time finding other land for housing. With many of my colleagues, I contend that great opportunities still exist to use derelict and underused land within and on the edge of many of our towns and cities as land for housing and other developments. Far too many people are still condemned to live as neighbours to decay—closed factories, empty warehouses, defunct power stations, unused wharfs and shrunken mental hospitals. Those useless monuments to the changed industrial and social life of Britain make bad neighbours for those who live beside them. Vandalism and dereliction, dirt and decay ensure a rotten environment. They create hopelessness, undermine initiative and cause depression and gloom. Land and buildings unused and uncared for are not just an economic waste but a social cancer.
  Much of such land is still in the hands of central and local government, nationalised industries and other public bodies such as the Health Service. Several factors militate against the use of this land, including little or no financial incentive to sell, management which lacks dynamism, public sector managers whose accountability is limited and often diffuse, inadequate entrepreneurial know-how and

  1337
  drive, and limited or non-existent knowledge of property development. In some cases, it is continuing political resistance from some local authorities.
  Where those factors can be changed a dramatic and rapid alteration follows. London's dockland is the prime example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was the mover behind the London docklands development scheme and he deserves continuing credit for it. I hope that there will come a time when he is again in a position directly to influence the course of government to the benefit of many.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), with expert advice from outside the House, has evolved public land use management schemes as one way to overcome the problems which too often stand in the way of selling public unused and underused land for housing and other purposes.
  I have spoken of the social cancer that derelict land represents, and there is still far too much of it. Figures from the Department of the Environment show more than 17,000 acres of derelict land in England as owned by county and district councils, with a further 28,000 acres owned by other public bodies. That was 40 per cent. of the total listed as derelict land in public ownership.
  Not all but much of that land could be used to meet housing demand and thus help to limit the need to provide more and more green field sites for developers. Where derelict land and other urban land is used for housing, it is vital that development schemes are comprehensive, responsive to the desires of individuals and provided with a satisfactory environment around them.
  Local authority city housing schemes of the 1960s and 1970s were often a disaster because planners, architects and, I have to admit, politicians paid scant heed to the wishes, though they were articulated clearly enough, of the often reluctant residents. It has taken us 25 years to learn the lessons of tower blocks. Where houses have been built for sale, the consumer has always had a say. That opportunity for choice now has a better chance of occurring in the rented sector under the Government's new initiatives, but there is still a long way to go. If the rapid development of city and other urban land is to take place, and thus relieve the pressure on green field development, such action can be successful only if homes and the lived-in environment around them are attractive to the people. Britain has not been good at achieving attractive modern towns and cities. The challenge now and in the future is to make them better places in which to live.
  I return to the subject of green field sites and Government policy on specific planning applications. Pressure from would-be developers is relentless, be it for warehousing, factories, offices, shopping centres or new towns. My purpose in initiating this debate—and many of my hon. Friends will share my view—is to make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose appointment I welcome, that there is growing concern about existing and potential overdevelopment in parts of Britain, particularly in the south. We want him to take full cognisance of our concern because it reflects that of many of our constituents and supporters, who look to the Government to balance the demand for homes against the need to protect the environment. They are not arguing like Luddites against
  1338
  all things new—they want planning law to be used to achieve a proper balance, and if it is inadequate for that purpose, it should be changed.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my hon. Friend aware of the way in which what appears to be a certainty suddenly becomes an uncertainty? For example, there is a proposition to build on the edge of my constituency a parkway station in the middle of a gap which every local authority in the area had designated as a gap which should not be closed. Now we are all apprehensive lest once the station is built there will be no way of protecting the area, so that what was a complete certainty has suddenly become a total uncertainty.
  Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend reinforces my point, and no doubt other hon. Members will refer to specific changes.
  Regional and county structure plans provide a framework for the control of growth. Land earmarked for future development is known, local authorities can make their dispositions accordingly, and local people know roughly where they stand. But the readiness of development groups to challenge existing guidelines—and to do so with blatant disregard for the stated views of Ministers, local authorities and communities—is setting the cat among the pigeons. An application to build a new town in Oxfordshire, to be known felicitously as Stone Bassett, is a prime example of that. Happily, that scheme has been thrown out. That scheme, which had no place in any county or district plan, was evolved between a development consortium and a local farmer. The cost in money, time, worry and stress to the small community that would have been engulfed by the scheme has been immense.
  My constituents and I have benefited from a similar decision taken on an application for a major out-of-town shopping centre at Hewitts Farm close by the M25 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). There, too, developers had been repeatedly warned by Ministers that such an application was most unlikely to be successful because it fell outside all the relevant criteria. The developers nevertheless persisted but, I am glad to say, without success. That is the response that we look to the Secretary of State for the Environment to give in such cases—and not, as has happened over Foxley Wood, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), to allow the application on appeal. My hon. Friend raised that issue in the House only this afternoon.
  I end by asking the Minister to convey to the Secretary of State my request that as one of his first acts in his new job he should reconsider the Foxley Wood decision and overturn it. That would give a clear and definite signal that on the development of green field sites his tiller is hard over to green.
  2.45 am
  Sir Peter Emery: The late hour and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate emphasise the extreme importance that a number of senior hon. Members attach to planning and to the protection of the environment.
  In your other role as Chairman of Ways and Means, I suggest that it might have been helpful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the 10-minute rule on speeches had applied

  1339
  throughout these debates because we might thus have saved an hour and a half for other speeches or for time in which to bowl along through the other debates because many hon. Members have spoken for longer than 10 minutes. However, I shall attempt to hold to that time limit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) should be congratulated immensely on bringing this matter to the House's attention. The fears that he has expressed are evident not only in the south-east and around London and all the main cities; but in many other parts of the country, not least in the south-west. I shall use east Devon and my constituency of Honiton as an illustration. It contains some of our most beautiful countryside, such as the deep coombs and valleys, the commons at Woodbury and the red cliffs along the coast from Lyme Regis to Exmouth. The ancient farmland, village life and the seashore make for an ideal constituency with more than its share of countryside of outstanding natural beauty.
  The natural beauty of many parts of the country has been bequeathed to us by past generations and is something that we only borrow and use. We should protect it before handing it on—I hope unsullied and unspoiled—for the benefit of future generations.
  The concrete jungle is spreading not only in our big cities and towns, but in many parts of our countryside. Once spread, it eats into the greenness of the countryside which can never be restored and that is something to which we should begin to pay considerable attention. The speed of the movement of the population around the country, and especially into the south-west, bears on this problem.
  Having been a Member of the House for six years, I was defeated in 1966 and 330 days later came back in a by-election as the Member of Parliament for my present constituency. That was in 1967. My constituency then included part of the city of Exeter, Topsham, Ottery St. Mary, rural and town, right up to Broadhembury where a former and well-known hon. Member, Sir Cedric Drewe, still has his family home. Payhembury and Plymtree, and had an electorate of about 63,000. I have lost those areas. I still have all the coast, Honiton, Axminster, Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth. If I added to my present electorate of 83,000 the parishes that I had in 1967, the electorate would be 107,000—an expansion in 21 years of more than 70 per cent.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend not illustrating something about which we are all worried—the way in which the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is controlled by the Government, presents statistics on population development which become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If it says that another 50,000 people will move to the Honiton area in the next 10 years, the planners give credence to that projection by allowing development which enables 50,000 people to move into the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must consider how they move people who have no intention of moving until the Government direct them to do so because the Government's statistical department says they should?
  Sir Peter Emery: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but it is not so much that the Government direct them there.
  1340
  I was about to say that we cannot go on in this way. There is no way in which the countryside can continue to absorb so much housing if we are to maintain its beauty. I accept the considerable need for housing, but we have to balance that need with the impact on the environment.
  Many retired people would like to find a home in east Devon or the south-west. Many thousands have already done so, but we cannot simply continue to build homes so that demand is automatically met. East Devon cannot continue to absorb this catastrophic population explosion. We cannot, and must not, allow the continued spread of the concrete jungle as, once it has come, it cannot he taken back.
  When I first represented Exmouth, it had a population of 17,000. It has been allowed to spread out and more than 30,000 people now live there. Looking down on Colyton from the hills, one can see the beautiful, old, small country town, but the expansion into housing estates around it is ruining it and the countryside.
  I am taking the example of my constituency, but I believe that the same applies to the north-east just as it does to the south-east. We cannot allow this spread of the city. There is now the possibility of about 280 acres being taken from Exeter airport. The Devon agricultural show is being moved from inside the city to east Devon. There is a possibility of a new industrial estate being put on Stuarts land, which also is outside Exeter.
  Given the way in which inquiries are now proceeding, and the way in which appeals are being allowed by the Department of the Environment, I believe that in the next 15 years we shall see development spreading out of those sites. Within 20 or 25 years, Exeter city will be demanding that its boundaries be widened to eat into approximately a quarter more of east Devon. I do not think that that makes sense either to the Government or to those who wish to protect the environment in which they live.
  I wish not merely to complain, but to make suggestions. First, I believe that the views of the local planning authority and the advice given by parish and town councils must now be allowed to stand, and to be overturned only in extreme instances by the Department's officials or inspectors on appeal. The views of local people must be taken into account much more.
  Secondly, we need to revise the Government's guidenotes to local authorities so that they do not lead developers to believe that they will be able to get around local officials. Local officials should not use them as a "guard" with which to advise councillors to grant planning requests, because if they do not they are likely to find that the guidenotes will allow appeals: often councillors do not hold to their preferred judgments, having been warned by officials that any appeal will be won by the developer.
  The Department's guidance note No. 12, published in 1988, stresses the need for
  "clear up-to-date local plans, consistent with national, regional and structure plan policies and setting out detailed policies and specific proposals for the use of land."
  When a matter goes to appeal, the inspector will have the views of the local planning authority and the developer and the guidance notes on the needs of housing. The balance is two-to-one in favour of the developer if a local plan does not exist. That local plan should be immediately available.
  I urge the Minister to back the policy that I am supporting in my constituency: that local people and local parishes should produce a draft local plan and submit it to

  1341
  their district council. Even if not approved, it can be used in evidence until something is approved, so that the inspector can refer to some aspect of local planning.
  I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that his Department is immensely unpopular in the south-west. The Government are not seen to be bending over backwards to protect the environment. Ministers say that that is what they want, but their words are not borne out by what happens when inspectors deal with appeals. If Ministers do not quickly come to grips with the matter, it will become a serious problem not only for the Government but for the country.
  3 am
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on a most lucid exposition of the bare bones of this important case. I wish that at this extraordinary hour of the morning we could all put across a case so well.
  I welcome the appearance of a new Minister on this subject and hope that he will appreciate that for years some of us have been seeking to pressurise the Government to take a different view. We are aware of his open-minded approach and I hope that he will feel able to take yet another look at the background to the difficulties raised by planning applications, not just in the south and south-east but around our urban conurbations,.
  Among those who take an interest in these matters are colleagues from cities such as York, Chester, Manchester and Liverpool and from as far west as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). That shows that the problem is not confined to the south-east, although for obvious reasons the pressures on the home counties are greater.
  Previous Ministers have sought to dodge the fact that central Government must take responsibility for deciding where planning applications should be accepted. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) hinted in his intervention, there is no point in a system in which the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is required to produce a figure that is revised by an astonishing degree in a short time—such as 30 per cent. in two years. That is then cut by the Department when it suits the Department to do so. The south-eastern SERPLAN and the counties that belong to it are then required to share the number of houses and provide room for them. That is not planning. It is necessary for the Government to state the figures that they will approve for SERPLAN.
  I commend the concept of planning regions and think that the Government are working on it in an attempt to extend the general thought of planning by region. I hope that the Government will start to take some responsibility for deciding total numbers because it is not good enough to do it in the way that it is being presently done. Some people understand that to mean telling people where to live, but that is not the case. It is saying where planning applications will be granted, and from that decision economic consequences will flow. At no time during discussion of such matters has our group ever moved from the acceptance of the fact that if planning applications are continually refused in areas of heavy pressure, it will have economic consequences.
  1342
  One has only to look at planning applications and house prices in the north to see that what we propose has a beneficial side effect. It is that parts of the country where there has been some economic neglect will begin to receive extra attention because of the relative cheapness of housing, better facilities, easier modes of transport and greater availability of labour. The Government should acknowledge that they have a role in planning the nation's population and location. If they did that, much of the problem would start to go away. I hope that the Minister will not shelter behind the excuse that he has a quasi-judicial capacity in such matters and is unable to comment on individual cases and applications. That has often happened in the past.
  We have a very British system, in which the Government put themselves at arm's length from the initial application by allowing, quite correctly, the local authority to deal with it in the first place. Then there is an appeal, they appoint an inspector and do what they were going to do anyway. The whole process has become ludicrously expensive. A huge legal industry has arisen around it, with vast costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the personal distress caused to many people during such a process.
  While I welcome a number of the decisions that have been taken recently against some of the activities of such organisations as consortium developments, the Foxley Wood decision stands out as an illogical extension of everything that the Government have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is active in this case and has worked closely with us on it. He raised the matter this afternoon. The Foxley Wood application is contrary to the local plan and to the county structure plan. It takes in a large part of a site of special scientific interest, and the local inspector recommended that the application should be turned down. My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for the Environment said that he was minded to overturn the inspector's decision. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State be unminded, and that he has a close look at this. Overturning the decision will do more than cause an enormous amount of anger in a part of the country where the Government still command a great deal of respect and support. I would not wish to make too much of this point, but it is a fair one. It will also establish an unfortunate precedent and will give a green light to those developers who believe that, by modestly decreasing or increasing numbers, they can establish new towns of 4,500 houses, with all the consequence that such a development produces.
  Such a development would be too small to develop much of the infrastructure that is needed, so the local hospitals and schools, special facilities and roads will be overloaded by up to 20,000 people. It is not so small that it will not have an effect. One could go on for a long time about the undesirability of such developments. People have said that the county accepted the figures, but it did not. It was told the figures by central Government and was allocated the figures by SERPLAN. If the Government insist on allowing substantial planning applications for housing developments in the home counties, including northern Hampshire, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State will have a load of political trouble, and a great deal of support for our party will be used to prevent such precedents. I hope that Foxley Wood will be an example of the new view prevailing in Marsham street.
  Mr. Steen: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for raising two points in an intervention, but he makes an important point about infrastructure. Is not the problem in the south compounded by the Government's failure to provide the necessary infrastructure when they allow development—whether for 10 or 50 houses—by way of roads, police, schools, hospitals and lighting? People coming to an area are expected to be absorbed and the infrastructure is expected to cope, so Government funding is not made available to provide the facilities that those people rightly expect. Should not a criterion for planning in the future be that the Government should agree to give planning permission for the development of a village or two only if the public funds are available to maintain the existing high standard of facilities for those who move in?
  Mr. Wiggin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is worth saying that we are concerned about those who are our constituents now. We would, of course, be deeply interested if others were to move in. It is our duty, however, to protect those who are our constituents now. That is only right and proper. I have never flinched from the charge "Not in your back yard." So what? Surely that is my responsibility. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said about the quality of life.
  I understand that a planning Bill is to be introduced during the next Session and that it will contain a proposal to alter the not yet well established procedure of structure plans. It has taken about 14 years to complete the first round of structure plans. When the procedure is just about beginning to work, it is somewhat precipitate to throw it overboard. We should bear in mind that housebuilders, who in these circumstances perhaps cannot be seen as our friends, believe that a firm structure plan is better from their point of view than too much flexibility. They need firmness. They need to know the amount of land that will be available so that they can plan their land banks, assess demand and establish their pricing and numbers. I understand that the Council for the Protection of Rural England will say that it does not believe that abolishing structure plans is likely to be helpful from its point of view. Many of my colleagues believe that the Government will be treading on delicate ground if they proceed with the abolition of structure plans as they propose. It is the rigidity of the structure plan that we want to see maintained.
  We have come to find ourselves in an unholy mess with what I can describe only as planning by bribery. If a developer wants to erect a large number of houses, he need think only of an imaginative scheme to go alongside it. That can be a road, for example, or in a case—but perhaps it would be best not to go into my constituency problems. I am remaining somewhat neutral about one in particular. A developer can approach a local authority and say, "Wouldn't you like to have this and that? Incidentally, I want 1,500 houses." That leads to planning by bribery, and that is not the concept which thcose who drafted the original legislation 40 years ago had in mind. A way must be found of overcoming the problem.
  The political reaction to all these matters originates in a deterioration in the quality of life when too many people come to live in too small an area, and here I take up the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. If the quality of life can be maintained, the democratic objection to an increase in housing numbers in an area will
  1344
  be much reduced. Unless the Government can find ways of providing the necessary facilities—I have roads in mind especially, which are in a scandalous condition in constituences such as mine—the problem will continue as each housing application comes forward.
  I hope that my colleague from the county of Avon, the hon. Member for South Hams, will establish himself as being extremely green minded. Those who speak on these matters and who take an active interest in them have been as green as it is possible to be. Accusations that the Conservative party is ignoring these matters should be set against an account of our activities. I hope that the deep feelings that are held by many of us will be respected. The number of us who are in the Chamber at this extraordinary hour should reveal the depth of feeling among the supporters of the Government.
  3.14 am
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I have been in this place for 15 years and in each of those years planning issues have formed the largest part of my constituency case load. If anything, the case load has increased in recent times.
  I was playing a tape of Michael Flanders and Donald Swann the other day in my car. During the course of the tape Michael Flanders says that a friend of his has gone to live in a suburb of south London called Brighton. That is rather daunting as the tape was recorded in about 1963. I fear that we are well on the way to that kind of "megopolis", whereby it would be possible to drive from the south coast to north London, with all the communities between them joined together.
  The centre of my own constituency of Chertsey and Walton is only 22 miles from Westminster. As it is so conveniently within commuting distance of London, many people want to live there and housing developments in the area have proliferated over the years. During my time in the House, motorways have also arrived in the form of the M25 and the M3, which bisect my constituency. One can add to that the proximity of Heathrow, helicopter routes, a small local airfield, and the most recent and sensationally grotesque proposal for a waste tip, which is to take the form not of landfill but of what I can only describe as "landbuild" as the waste to be disposed of by Cementation will reach a height of 70 m. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members will dwell on the prospect of a waste tip 70 m high in the rural heart of my constituency.
  My constituency is not helped topographically by having gravel deposits below the surface. There are constant battles over gravel extraction, and in recent years the local community has been successful in saving Chertsey Meads, where people can walk or exercise their horses, and Wey Manor Farm. Nevertheless, planning pressures lead my constituents to look for greater protection from planning laws, not less. They seek to avoid the joining of small communities, which is different from some of the problems described by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is all part of the same picture, but one is not necessarily always talking in terms of lovely rural countryside which risks having a Foxley Wood dropped in the middle of it. For my constituents, it is important that their relatively small towns and communities are not joined together. Even if the individual areas of green land

  1345
  which separate them appear insignificant, they are the only lungs available to my constituents for recreation and exercise.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, planning expectations become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Developers take a long-term view and do not mind holding on to land for 10, 15 or 20 years. They continually make applications and wear down the local council. I should like to see an escalating tariff, which would make it more and more expensive for developers to continue submitting fresh planning applications. The local community often has to make great efforts to raise money to retain a Queen's Counsel, only to be certain that even if they win an appeal the chances are that the developer will soon be making a similar if not identical application. The developers do not need to worry as they have the time and the resources to continue relentlessly grinding down the local community. That is highly unsatisfactory.
  Developers often denigrate the political process by their comments in local newspapers or at public inquiries. To them the process of local democracy is somewhat inconvenient—a rather tedious formality which stands in the way of the inevitable, ongoing process of joining up all the communities in a constituency such as mine until only a vast outer London sprawl remains.
  As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to try to protect for future generations something resembling a decent environment and a decent quality of life. We therefore look to the Government to operate the planning laws in a way that is certain and tough and that shows that some things will not be allowed. The message will finally reach some developers that there are some activities in which they will be able to engage. We need development in some parts of the country in the controlled and careful manner that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) described when he introduced the debate in such an admirable manner. Our fundamental duty as Members of Parliament is to do all that we can to prevent any further erosion of the standard of living and quality of life of our constituents, and so much of that depends on how the planning laws are operated.
  3.20 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) at any time of the day or night. Even at 3.20 in the morning it is a great delight to see him here.
  My hon. Friend will agree that the group of hon. Members here tonight are the advance party. The Minister is undergoing a small test of how he will respond to what is in fact an army of about 100 Members of Parliament, whose force he should not underestimate, representing Conservative Members from all over the country, who feel that the Government have got their planning policy hopelessley wrong.
  We are delighted to see my hon. Friend the new Minister on the Front Bench. We hope that he will take back to his Department what is being said by the advance party. I feel sure that the new team in the Department of the Environment, including the Secretary of State, would wish to come to terms and to grips with what to us is probably the most serious problem in our constituencies—the unrestrained and tasteless growth of the population
  1346
  with a consequent increase in housing on a scale that has never been seen before and that is destroying the quality of life and the beauty of the countryside in our constituencies on a scale and at a rate which is utterly unacceptable to many of my hon. Friends.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to realise that. although there is a small team of comparatively senior and influential Members here tonight, it is nothing to what he may see if the Government do not get this right and start having a meaningful discussion with the Back-Bench groups who feel that something has gone wrong and needs to be put right.
  We welcome my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench tonight, but we have seen a great number of Ministers in that place. No sooner does a Minister get to grips with the problem than he is moved on again. It is rather like Dante's "Inferno". As soon as they get a grasp of the problem my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister moves them on again. I do not know how many Ministers have preceded my hon. Friend or how many Back Benchers have tried to explain the problem to those Ministers. As soon as they understand the point, off they go again.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will dig his heels in and say, "I am not moving on. I am staying right here until I have dealt with this tremendous problem." We know of my hon. Friend's conviction in planning matters. We know that this is new to him and we know that Lewisham does not have the green fields that he would like it to have, but we feel sure that he would not wish all our constituencies south of Watford to be an unrestrained growth of concrete. That is what we are here to discuss.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who is known to be balanced in his judgment and approach, introduced the debate in the most measured tones. We are not saying that there should be no development in the south. We are not saying that there should be no growth, no new homes, no starter homes for people in low-income groups. We are desperately keen on more homes for indigenous local people, who are being driven out of the rural constituencies in the south-west because of the great demand, especially among the retired population, to come to live in these beautiful areas.
  We want more starter homes and more growth, but it must be restrained, it must be indigenous and it must be controlled to ensure that the necessary infrastructure exists. It is no good building more and more homes if there are not sufficient schools to which the children of families who live in them can go. Ivybridge in my constituency, just south of the Dartmoor national park. is one of the fastest growing towns in Europe; the county council has allowed so much growth that the schools have 30, 40 or even 50 children to a class. That is quite scandalous.
  As one builds more and more houses, one places greater demand on hospitals. The Government should not allow areas to expand if there are not enough hospital places. Similarly, the police say that they do not have sufficient manpower to protect all those people and that the population is growing too fast. That, to my mind, is unrestrained and irresponsible planning. Any amendment of the structure plan must include a relationship between growth and infrastructure, and we must spell out what infrastructure is required per thousand people before allowing any further growth.
  Our first message to the Minister is that we do not oppose expansion and development, but we oppose pure

  1347
  market force development which pays no regard to the quality of life of those who live in our areas. There is nothing wrong in Conservative Members saying that, and we know that it will have considerable support from the new regime at the Department of the Environment. I hope that, as a starting point, the Minister will convey our belief and our concern about that.
  My remarks will be on a slightly different tack from those of other hon. Members. I have had one concern for more than 10 years, and I am getting nearly as bored with it as are Ministers who hear me make almost identical speeches every time they are here to answer a debate, but the point is worth making again because it remains just as relevant. The pressure on the green fields around our cities is aggravated by the fact that the Government have repeatedly failed to use the vacant, dormant, under-utilised land in public ownership that exists throughout the country, which is allowed to continue to grow in quantity in spite of the register set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend rightly said, "We do not have to continue to build on green field sites at the present rate if we can release some of the land that exists amid our urban sprawls. It is vacant, dormant and derelict; it is surplus to requirement and it is in public ownership." As many of my hon. Friends will know, that is a matter on which I have majored. I have been driven almost to the point of distraction in my search to discover how much land there is, where it is, what is happening to it and why it is not being used.
  In this short debate it might be worth refreshing the Minister's memory of what we are talking about and why there is a correlation between the continued demand for green field development and the Government's continued failure to do anything about the amount of public vacant land which continues to increase and continues not to be used.
  Between 1982 and 1986, on a broad-brush approach, there were more than 100,000 acres of public unused and underutilised land on the Department of the Environment's register. That figure is fairly accurate because there are 39 full-time officials in the Department of the Environment dealing with the register and the Minister may like to talk to them about it. The register is like an A to Z telephone directory. It contains the lists of all the lands that are vacant, dormant and underutilised in the country. It is enormous and lists thousands of sites. It is the job of those civil servants constantly to update the register and to put down a marker as more and more land becomes available.
  It is true to say that, whereas there were more than 100,000 acres on the register until 1986, that figure has been reduced. There are now about 85,200 acres. However, that comprises 8,134 sites. We could build an awful lot of homes, hospitals, schools and industrial and office buildings on 8,134 sites. The Minister should not be mistaken about this. Those sites are of one acre and over because my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, insisted on the exclusion of great tracts of land. Therefore, those 85,200 acres are only land that fits the criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
  Professor Alice Coleman of Kings college, the famous lady who deals with land use, says that the true figure is
  1348
  nearer double the 85,200 acres if we ignore the exclusions. Whether it is 85,000 or 170,000 acres, the important point for the House to consider is that that figure is not static.
  The most fascinating result of my research into these matters is that each year the Minister will claim that an enormous number of acres have come off the register, but an equal number have been added. The planning process is creating more and more land. It is like a food machine: more meat is put into the mincer, and understandably more comes out.
  In February 1989, in reply to a parliamentary question to the former Minister, before he moved into his next phase of Dante's "Inferno," I was told that, while in 1984 some 6,800 acres of vacant land were removed from the register, the Minister had to admit that 7,700 acres came on to it. In 1985, although 12,300 acres were removed, 10,800 acres were added. In 1986, some 6,300 acres were added, and 7,700 acres were added in 1987. In 1988, 4,800 acres were added. However many acres come off the register at one end, the very planning process produces more vacant, dormant and derelict land in public ownership at the other end. However many acres the Government say they have got off the register, we can be sure that more and more will be coming on to it. The Government should not feel complacent about the fact that land is coming off the register when so much continues to go on to it.
  Since 1982, a total of 37,805 acres have become vacant, dormant and underutilised. That means that 37,805 acres could and should have been used, and could still be used, for housing before green field sites have to be used. Also, much public vacant land will become private vacant land when nationalised industries are privatised. For example, 2,231 acres are in electricity industry ownership, and 2,952 acres are in water authority ownership. I am sure that my hon. Friends would like to know that the Minister's own Property Services Agency has 936 acres of vacant land. Surely the Minister should set an example to the country and get rid of some of that land before he starts to poach green field sites belonging to local authorities and other developers.
  The point that I have been making tirelessly and tiresomely for many years is that nearly 49,000 acres of land were in local authority ownership on 31 May 1989. Also, 7,900 sites are on the land register, and we are being pressed to use more green field sites in preference to public vacant land in unused or underutilised areas. That is: my first contention. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends know, I can go on for a day and a night. This matter is so important that the House would like to hear more about it at any time of the day or night.
  The planning process is creating and developing more public vacant land, and the Minister's Department is doing nothing to use it first. He may wish to be reminded of a splendid publication called "PLUMS—Public Land Utilisation Management Schemes", which I must admit that I wrote. That book offers a solution to public vacant land problems. At this time of the night, I do not wish my hon. Friend the Minister to think that he can get off lightly by being told the plot and the way in which the story unfolds. I am told that the book is better than Horlicks. If he takes the book home tonight, it will give him an insight into how he can tackle the problem.
  It would be quite wrong to continue any further. I told the Minister about chapter one. There are another nine chapters, and they should be brought to successive debates

  1349
  that the Minister has the good fortune to hear. At the moment, all he should know is that he has seen the advance party approaching. If another 90 colleagues were present, he would find himself in the Chamber for a considerably longer time. I urge him to stress to the Secretary of State that not an idle group but a cross-section of our great party is deeply concerned that the Government have failed in their responsibility to tackle the problem of tasteful development and to preserve our green and pleasant land.
  3.38 am
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on his introduction and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the variety of points that they have made. I shall try not to repeat any of those points, but I strongly agree with the force of the arguments. The surroundings that we enjoy are far more important to people than politicians yet seem to realise. We have a duty to leave to our children and grandchildren an environment of which we are leaseholders and not freeholders. The point of my hon. Friend's case is right and I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
  I say to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that we are right to say what should happen in our back yards. We are concerned about green fields, more particularly in the debate this evening because of our constituents who live in or near them, but also because those green fields are there for people from Hammersmith to come and enjoy. They are, therefore, an asset to the people of Hammersmith. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned that we are committed to making inner cities places in which people want to live and work. That is the other half of our debate.
  The former Secretary of State for the Environment was certainly a strong protector of the green belt. His decision on the Grange estate, just outside my constituency, was especially welcome to the people in Dorset and to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who would have liked to have been present for this debate. That illustrates that we are concerned not about the green belt over which the former Secretary of State was resolute, for which I praise him, but about the other green fields, where bodies such as Consortium Developments—the bulls in the delicate china shop of our environment—behave in a co-ordinated and over-powering way in launching their attacks to try to establish new towns in a completely inappropriate manner. I hope that the new Secretary of State will resist new towns in Foxley Wood and elsewhere.
  On many occasions I have said that our planning system is out of date and needs to be changed because it does not meet today's needs. I shall make two general points which I do not think have been mentioned before. First, I believe that our planning law should recognise environmental capacities. By that I mean that a place's capacity to absorb new development is finite. That should be a factor in planning law. Developers argue all the time that any number of new developments could be fitted in. Our planning law should look at the matter from the other perspective and say, "What developments can a place and its infrastructure take on?" That will give us some different answers.
  1350
  My second point, which has been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends already, concerns numbers. I want to see assessments of numbers based upon need and not the demands of the developers. Indeed, one of my concerns about the White Paper is that I understand that its assessment of numbers is based upon the SERPLAN system of producing anticipated numbers. The SERPLAN system of numbers is really developer based and driven out of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I do not believe that is good enough. We should not be trying to assess numbers in that way. It is based not on need, but on demand, which is developer driven.
  We shall be discussing the White Paper in the next Session of Parliament. The Government put out proposals in 1986 to try to simplify and speed up the planning process. That is an aim that I share and applaud, but I believe that that aim can be achieved only by tightening up the planning system, so that at every level, national, regional and local, it is made clear—certainly more clear than it is at present—how the land is to be used. It is proposed that county structure plans should be abolished and replaced by district development plans, accompanied by a statement of county planning policies.
  At first glance, the White Paper seems to share some of the objectives that some of my colleagues and I put forward in a pamphlet entitled "This Pleasant Land", which has already been mentioned.
  Mr. Steen: It is very good.
  Mr. Baker: As usual, my hon. Friend is very kind.
  Having read the White Paper closely, I am concerned that the Department of the Environment will produce the figures on which, at every stage, the plans are to be based. The figures will be provided not by local authorities or determined with their agreement but by the Department under the SERPLAN system.
  My grounds for fearing that the White Paper proposals will involve the Secretary of State at a lower level of the planning process appear in paragraph 2.13 of the White Paper. The Secretary of State will have to agree that a statement of county planning policies shall cover any matters other than those set out in the six-point core of strategic issues. The paragraph continues by saying that county planning statements must be updated and, indeed, altered following the issue of planning guidance by the Secretary of State. Under the White Paper's proposals, the Secretary of State's powers will increase considerably, which gives me—and should give many other people—considerable cause for concern.
  In the past week, I have put forward some proposals for low-cost housing in rural areas. Rural towns and villages have become affluent and prices have risen more rapidly than elsewhere. Migration of people from cities, movement on retirement, inadequate planning policies and lower-than-average incomes have restricted access to low-cost housing for local people. In many rural areas—especially, though not exclusively, in southern England—the problem is acute. Inadequate attention is being given to the housing needs of people on lower incomes, whose contribution to community life is essential, and they are being squeezed out of the villages in which their families have lived, often for hundreds of years.
  To deal with that problem, housing surveys should be carried out locally. The Department should support the process of carrying out surveys and should give advice on

  1351
  how they should be done. Parish meetings should be given powers to conduct the operation and to require local authorities to carry out surveys in the absence of parish or town councils. The cost should be met by district councils with help from the Treasury.
  Having identified sites in a parish or town, parish councils should be encouraged to propose to their annual meetings that village housing trusts should be formed for the provision of low-cost accommodation to meet local needs. I should like to see a more consistent approach to the provision of low-cost housing. I advocate, in this and in many other ways, greater powers of responsibility being given to parish councils in planning policy. They are generally aware of the parish's needs, including the need for more jobs to replace those that agriculture no longer provides and the need for local housing. They are exactly the bodies which should oversee planning. I no longer believe that council-owned housing is the way to deal with problems in rural areas. I support my hon. Friends' remarks about the urgent need to change our planning legislation and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the speeches that have been made.
  3.49 am
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Labour party shares the concerns expressed by Conservative Members about what is happening to the countryside and the villages of England, particularly in the south. About a year and a half ago, I spoke to the Royal Town Planning Institute and said that the south of England was no longer the countryside that we remembered, but a form of urban parkland, because it was managed countryside with an increasing amount of building.
  Conservative Members have brought this on themselves. In the 1960s and 1970s, increasing overdevelopment was a serious problem in the south of England. The last thing it needed was what it got in 1979, when the new Secretary of State for the Environment boasted of having a bonfire of planning controls. He has had the audacity to complain because the now recently departed and little lamented Secretary of State for the Environment poured petrol on the flames.
  The Conservative party destroyed planning as we had known it. It handed planning on a platter to the developers. Now it complains because developers are reaping the benefits. The Government's other fatal mistake was to undermine and devalue local government to the extent that it no longer controls its area. Those are the reasons why so many Conservative Members are saying, "Please give some power back to my local authority, the planners and my local community." The Conservative Government took that power away.
  The Government then fell back on the daft argument about market forces. I could hardly believe my ears when the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), first looking round to see that no Whip was present to report him to the Prime Minister, said that market forces could undermine the quality of life. Of course they can. The Government have made it much easier for market forces to operate, although there can never be a free market for housing. By trying to pretend that there is a free market, they opened up the worst aspects of ordinary development which are on green field sites.
  1352
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) complains about green field site building. It makes much more sense to build on green field sites than on derelict land, because it is cheaper and easier, and provides more flexibility in development. When he opens a debate about ending green field site development and using derelict land, he should make it clear that there are only two ways to achieve that: by introducing more planning legislation for local authorities, not by undermining and destroying them, or by subsidising builders to develop derelict land.
  The "not in my back yard" syndrome is caused by Government policies. Either people build on a green field site or not at all. It is worth examining the building figures for the past 12 months. The Government expect the free market to provide the housing that is necessary. The new build figures this year are 20 per cent. down on last year's figures. Why? Because of interest rates. Who is being provided for? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks believes that there is choice in housing. What is there for his constituents—not just those on average or below average income but above average income—to buy or rent? There is a catastrophic shortage of low-cost accommodation for rent or sale in southern Britain.
  Whenever I make a speech on this, I receive letters and phone calls from people who live in areas such as the hon. Member's, saying, "I live in a £200,000 house but there is nowhere for my son or daughter to rent or buy. There is nowhere for the village postman, the nurse, the driver or teacher." What used to be regarded as an inner-city problem is developing in rural areas. Communities are being torn apart, just as they were in inner-city areas. Unless we address that through planning, we shall have the same problems in rural areas as we have in the cities.
  It is daft to suggest that we use docklands as an example. It is an appalling example of the Government pouring taxpayers' money into massive subsidies which result in developments occurring in the opposite way to the way they occur in every other developed country. Other countries put the infrastructure in first, subsidised by the public sector, and then the private sector is allowed to complete the development.
  In docklands, where it is happening the other way round, the money is pouring into the pockets of the developers out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and we are getting the wrong type of development. How can people who need low-cost housing find homes in docklands? I warn the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that it will happen in his constituency in the same way as it is happening in London.
  The answer is to give local authorities back their planning powers, to cease to undermine and demoralise local councillors and planning officers and to make sure that the planning rules put the ball in the court of the community and councillors and not in the court of the developers.
  Developers are at present setting the pace, not just because of the appeals system but because of the way in which the Government have structured the market. It can never be a free market, because the supply of land and buildings is too inelastic; because the subsidy system works against it being a free market, particularly mortgage income tax relief, which destroys the concept of a free market; and because, although the Government have destroyed many of the planning regulations, there are sufficient regulations left to ensure that a free market cannot operate.

  1353
  One of the tragedies of the philosophy that has been rammed down our throats for the last 10 years is the belief that a free market is the best of all possible options for most people. In fact, it is a short-term policy, and for the quality of the environment in areas such as the south of Britain, where 20 million people live, it is a disaster. That is why the Conservatives are getting into so much trouble in this part of Britain.
  3.56 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) that this has been an excellent debate. I fully respect the clear strength of feeling that exists on this issue, as evidenced by the speeches of a number of my senior hon. Friends who, among them, have decades of much-valued experience and whose views have provided a helpful and thought-provoking debate and an excellent start to my work on this subject.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that we will listen carefully and attempt to match our words with deeds, an objective which was sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I became somewhat concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said that as soon as a Minister said, "I understand", he was moved on. After just 18 hours in the job, I face that prospect with some trepidation. I have listened carefully and I am beginning to understand, and I hope that when I wake up later in the day I shall not be moved on because a number of important and challenging issues have been raised.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for raising an issue that is of fundamental importance to the future character of the nation's towns, cities and countryside. Underlying all the policies has been concern that the pressure of development poses a threat to the environment. At at a time of unparalleled economic prosperity, that pressure and those concerns are heightened, particularly in the south-east of England, but—as my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said—in other parts of the country as well.
  The debate, therefore, is about how to accommodate economic growth in ways that enhance the quality of life in urban and rural communities and conserve our
  1354
  countryside heritage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, it is a question of balancing the demand for homes against the existing environment. That process cannot ignore the changes that are taking place in society and in people's expectations.
  Population growth is critical in this area, and I am grateful to hon. Members for assisting my learning curve by highlighting a number of important matters, not least the numbers question, an issue at which I shall look closely.
  I shall, in the short time left to me, reflect on what I consider to be an essential matter that was raised by my hon. Friends. I refer to the availability of land in towns and cities and the need to ensure that such land is used in preference to green field sites. I agree with my hon. Friends on this point. I represent an area at the heart of the inner city—Lewisham—and I know that it is important that full and effective use is made of land within existing urban areas. My experience has shown that there are many opportunities arising from conversions, improvement and redevelopment, the bringing into use of neglected, unused or derelict land, including sites on land registers—I take on board the points made on that issue—and sites suitable for small-scale housing schemes in inner-city areas such as my constituency.
  The important point is to put the land that is available in areas such as my constituency to good use. It is also important to make every effort to ensure that such land is placed as a priority over green field sites so that we can retain green field sites and the green belt. I appreciate that the debate has not dealt primarily with the green belts and I appreciate also my hon. Friends' comments on the success of that policy. I believe strongly that green belt policy should not allow for flexibility about what is or is not green belt land. However, that is another point and I hope that we can consider it carefully on other occasions. Many important points have been raised, not least the need to respond to local people and to ensure that their needs are met and that there is a mechanism to facilitate listening to and implementing their wishes more fully.
  Those are only some of the issues that were raised. I have listened to all the issues discussed. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not responding to all their points because of the time constraint, but I look forward to a constructive and—I hope—long-standing debate on this issue which will enable us to work constructively to achieve many of the goals that my hon. Friends have set for the Government in this constructive debate.

  Strategic Planning (London)
  4.1 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that hon. Members will forgive the pun, but as I came into the Chamber it dawned on me that on the last morning before the summer recess last year I had a slot at about the same time. On that occasion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), replied on behalf of the Government in her maiden speech as a Minister.
  My debate on that occasion was on the global environmental crisis. Little did I anticipate that the subject that I aired then would take off politically in the way that it did in the ensuing 12 months. It not only became the dominant issue at my party's conference in September, but it became the subject of the Prime Minister's now famous September speech and the major new issue on the political agenda. I hope that the issue that I raise today will become an issue of equal importance on the political agenda in this country and in our capital city, although I do not pretend that it has significance beyond that.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft strategic planning guidance for London. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members who do not represent London constituencies benefit from the tradition of having a strategic plan for your areas as part of the general planning system. Indeed, that is something that we had in London. Such strategic plans were prepared by local government until the abolition of the Greater London council.
  During the passage of the Act abolishing the GLC, we had substantial debates about what should happen in relation to the planning of the capital city and the metropolitan area once the GLC was abolished. The debate concluded that a body to be called the London planning advisory committee should be set up, to be made up of the planning committee chairs or other representatives from all the London boroughs and the City of London. The committee's task was to advise the Secretary of State on all London-wide planning matters. It was agreed that its first task was to advise on the content of strategic guidance for the capital city. So it was that the London planning advisory committee was set up. It worked extremely hard and, on 25 October last year, produced the document "Strategic planning advice for London: Policies for the 1990s" as its advice to the Secretary of State.
  One of the special things about the document is that it received unanimous support from the three parties which were represented on the committee. It was signed by the three party leaders. I think that everyone will pay tribute to the chairman, who happens to be a party colleague of mine—Councillor Sally Hanwee of Richmond. She and her committee and their officers produced a very worthwhile document.
  The document presents some uplifting thoughts. The committee identified four themes which have made London what it has been at its best: London as a civilised city, London as a world city of trade, London as a city of residential neighbourhoods and communities, and London as a city which offers opportunities for all.
  The committee says that it has attempted to set forth the planning policies necessary to ensure London's success
  1356
  into the next century. It also says that the complexity of considering strategic planning matters for London, which accommodates 15 per cent. of the nation's population and work force and accounts for nearly one fifth of the gross domestic product, made it difficult to produce the advice. The need to provide a co-ordinated context for 33 separate planning authorities presented a greater problem than in the other metropolitan areas. Nevertheless, the committee did so unanimously. The document went to the Secretary of State and he issued, in March this year, draft strategic planning guidance for London, which is a much shorter document, mainly because it omits many of the important matters on which he was given advice and which I—and, I believe, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Soley)—will argue should have been included.
  The debate is timely because it could not have happened later. We always knew that the Secretary of State planned to issue his guidance before the end of July. I understand that it is no secret that the Secretary of State may issue his guidance today—by which I mean Friday, not Thursday which is where we still are in the parliamentary time warp of an all-night sitting. I ask the Minister to agree, and to ask the Secretary of State to agree, not to issue the guidance today, but to have further consultation on it, especially on the matters about which there is still anxiety. The new Secretary of State, who I welcome, has an opportunity here to apply his mind to the document.
  It was obvious from his time as Minister for Overseas Development that the Secretary of State is particularly concerned about environmental matters worldwide. He has been shown a good deal on our television screens this week padding around the Brazilian rain forests—and all credit to him for that—but I hope and believe that he is no less concerned about environmental matters closer to home. In many people's experience the environment is in pretty poor shape in our capital city, and I hope that I can persuade the Minister to agree that there is no need to insist dogmatically on publication today. I believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers must be willing not to go ahead and issue a final strategic planning guidance that would show little change from the draft document.
  Once produced, the document will effectively act as the strategic plan for London, and as a basis on which the local authorities will then draw up their unitary development plans. I know that that process should not be put off for months, with the whole exercise being repeated, but I believe that there are good reasons for delaying it somewhat. As the Minister probably knows, there has been widespread criticism of the draft guidance by those who have been consulted. Perhaps the most important criticism has come from the London advisory committee itself, again on an all-party basis. Other critics have been the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association and the Association of London Borough Planning Officers.
  Along with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire)—who apologised to me some hours ago for not being able to attend the debate as he had a prior engagement to spend the evening with his family—and the three other Members of the group equally representative of the party groupings in the House, I am a member of the parliamentary cross-party London housing group of MPs, who are linked with a body called the Campaign for Homes in Central

  1357
  London. We, too, have looked at the draft guidance, which was the subject of a conference held in county hall, and share the view that there is sufficient criticism and cause for concern for the document to be revised.
  I have another reason for suggesting that the Minister should think again. Given the importance of the document, there has been inadequate consultation and debate. This is the first time that it has been debated in Parliament, the only other public debate being the one at county hall which took place in the middle of May. The consultation period was only 10 weeks.
  It is important to delay if necessary because it is important to get things right. It has now become almost a cliché that London is grinding to a halt. Our transport system is increasingly clogged, and not just when there are rail, tube or bus strikes. It is generally more difficult to get around the capital, even without the additional influx which will result from Channel tunnel rail termini. Increasingly, there are staff shortages in key jobs and it is often impossible for people to acquire affordable homes. Those problems are not raised by people with a partisan political view. For example, Coopers and Lybrand was commissioned by ELPAC to carry out an independent survey, the result of which appeared in May. The survey report was called "Access to Housing in London" and confirmed the matters that I have mentioned.
  The problems are so serious that it is imperative for us to get things right. I shall concentrate on one or two of the most significant matters and mention some others that are also important. The most significant matter in terms of immediacy and importance to the people affected is that we must strive to make London successful not just economically but in a way that will make it pleasant and satisfactory for Londoners to live in and for people to move around and work in.
  To do that we must deal strategically with housing and housing policy. We need affordable housing and it must be continually available in our capital city. The Minister is a London Member and knows the pressures in his borough, as do the other London Members who are present. Unless there is a change to enable planning powers to intervene and influence the provision of housing, the market forces at work in London will continue ineluctably to drive up house prices. That is because London is a capital city and an international city to which people come. That produces additional forces which are not applied to our other towns and cities. Those factors price out people who have always lived here or less well paid people who need to live here because of their work.
  We need a planning use class that enables land to be zoned specifically for low-cost or affordable housing. That idea has been considered in the Department because our all-party group has had discussions with Ministers responsible for housing and planning. Escalating amounts of public subsidy are spent on acquisitions in competition with the private sector in order to provide a decreasing number of new homes. Cost limits, which were developed to limit expenditure on, for example, housing association acquisition costs, mean that central London is getting fewer affordable homes.
  I have as many constituency pressures as any hon. Member, not least because in the docklands there are expensive developments while on the other side of the road
  1358
  people are still living in poor council accommodation. The recommendations made to the Secretary of State by LPAC should be adopted. It recommended in paragraph 2.17:
  "Increased emphasis on the provision of satisfactory housing at affordable prices, particularly for those on low incomes."
  Paragraph 3.5 refers to
  "An approach which emphasises housing needs rather than simply meeting housing demands."
  Paragraph 3.2 talks about
  "The objective of sustaining and developing stable and secure residential neighbourhoods and communities and preventing any losses from existing dwelling stock."
  In paragraph 4.3 LPAC mentions
  "Housing capacity figures for boroughs linked to assessments of need for low-cost housing and a requirement to demonstrate how these will be met, including key workers and groups with special housing need."
  Paragraph 4.4 refers to
  "Agreements with developers to ensure the maximum amount of low-cost housing in new-build schemes with a minimum of 25 per cent. affordable homes in larger schemes."
  The proposal was clearly made that a high proportion of new dwellings should be for social or non-market housing. The Coopers and Lybrand report, "Access to Housing in London", said as strongly as any such report could how urgent the matter is. It concluded:
  "Access to housing in London will only be secured for those who legitimately require it if action is taken on a scale not yet seen or even contemplated."
  It says that London's housing market is a special case. Because of the international position of the capital city, the usual pricing mechanisms do not apply—the point that I made earlier. However, our economy is dependent on low-paid service sector workers, who find it increasingly difficult to live here, and so have to live away and commute in, which they also find difficult. In the meantime, prices are pushed up by wealthy people coming in from outside. Some methods exist, such as section 52 planning, but they are insufficient and we need more.
  The document does not even mention the problem of homelessness. It mentions the importance of providing housing for lower and middle income households in London, but no objectives or mechanisms for ensuring this housing accessibility. Almost incredibly it says:
  "The need for new homes will be met by maintaining the present rates of new construction and conversion in the private sector, and the continuing buoyancy of demand."
  That does not explain why, so far, the market has not provided affordable homes for large numbers. It is inadequate to see conversions as a major source of new low-cost homes. The implication is that more homes will meet housing need, but that is not true. More affordable homes would do that, but there must be a policy to provide such homes.
  The presumption in the Greater London development plan, which is to be superseded by the guidance once it is finalised, against loss of housing will be eroded by a policy requiring boroughs to show that they are making reasonable provision to accommodate demand for business development if they wish to retain sites and buildings in residential use. This could be particularly devastating for central London communities in places of pressure, and in boroughs such as mine. This set of pressures—particularly those which force out affordable housing—is the most severe problem facing individuals and families, often at the most desperate end of the social

  1359
  needs scale. Some of them are Londoners, but some are those who come here and cannot find anywhere cheap to live.
  We need also a co-ordinated transport policy. My constituency provides a good example of this need. We are discussing whether there will be a Jubilee line extension, going from Green Park through Westminster and Waterloo to points east. We are anticipating the Channel tunnel rail link, going under the constituency. British Rail is consulting about widening the viaduct at Southwark cathedral. There is the faint possibility of an extension of the Bakerloo line. But none of these ideas is being considered in a co-ordinated way, and they are not to be integrated, for example, with the plans for the expansion of Waterloo and the siting of the second terminus for the Channel tunnel rail link at King's Cross or Stratford. There is no strategic transport planning. It is irresponsible for a capital city of a congested country such as ours not to have a strategic and integrated transport policy.
  The document that we have on these matters is extremely weak. It is about time that the statements about public transport and the need for an integrated provision were made more boldly. It is these parts of the document which betray its innate weakness, and it is in these areas that the document is ambiguous, simplistic and poorly co-ordinated. There are descriptive statements of effects but not policy statements. With the advice of those who are experts, and officers and members of councils across the party divide, the document so obviously stands ready for improvement. We must seize the opportunity.
  As for the integration of public transport, there is a reference in the document to the central London rail study and another to the east London rail study. That suggests that the Government thought of one study and then the next. I think that the announcement of the result of one was made during the week when it was announced that the other would be set up. The studies are interlinked, and it is not possible to plan adequately for transport in the new and developing dockland area without knowing how that will fit in with transport in the middle of the capital.
  We read in paragraph 31 that the Government intend to extend the deregulation of bus services to London in the early 1990s. It is stated:
  "This will give London the benefits of greater competition and innovation and reduce levels of subsidy that have been achieved elsewhere in the country."
  It does not say that the extension will produce further traffic congestion and greater difficulties. We often hear complaints in the House about the horrendous problems caused by coaches which bring tourists to the area and park along the Embankment or on Westminster bridge. They were parked two or three deep the other day when I came to the House. It is naive to make a supposed statement on deregulation without any analysis of the consequences.
  Paragraph 34 states:
  "The Government also recognises that undesirable car commuting traffic will be discouraged."
  Almost all car commuting traffic is undesirable. The majority of it carries one person into the capital and the same person out. Generally, the individual's car is not used from the time he arrives to the time he leaves in the evening. Properly subsidised and adequately supported public transport would reduce the number of private cars and ease the enormous congestion. The predictions of the numbers of vehicles using the roads of the capital are
  1360
  horrendous. It is forecast that the number of cars owned by people living in London could increase by 22 per cent. to 34 per cent. by the year 2001, bringing the total up to 3 million. The problems are bad enough already without increasing the number of cars to that extent.
  We need to be firm about green belt land and the environment generally. We must make it clear that green belt and metropolitan open land and other open land is sacrosanct and clearly stated to be so. In the statements on metropolitan open land, it is not clear to me that the borough of Southwark would not be able, consistent with the policy behind the strategic guidance, to sell off part of Burgess park—a metropolitan open land park created by the London county council and the Greater London council—for housing development for sale. Does the presumption against development of the green belt apply equally to metropolitan open land so that that would be something that the Minister would be likely to turn down? How strong is the protection? That still seems unclear and requires much more specific analysis.
  Paragraph 61 deals with an enormously important and controversial matter—important views and the River Thames. It seems that the Secretary of State intends to issue further guidance on the protection of strategic views, such as those of St. Paul's and the Palace of Westminster. Soon, the planning inspector's report on Hay's Wharf, which is opposite the Tower of London and next to the southern end of Tower bridge in my constituency, will land on the Secretary of State's desk. The original design, for a building whose architecture resembled that of the Houses of Parliament, was—thank goodness—called in after a request made by myself with the support of others. Three options were then offered. In my view, none is sufficiently good to justify occupying that site again, and English Heritage agrees. In any event, clear guidance is vital if we are not to lose the character of the Thames riverline and spoil it for generations to come. The Thames and the river front are unique features of our capital and any new development there must be right.
  Paragraph 63 of the draft refers to archaeology:
  "Local planning authorities should also take account of the desirability of preserving ancient monuments and their settings. They may wish to draw developers' attention to the Code of Practice drawn up by the British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group when considering developments which will affect known or presumed archaeological remains. Any conditions proposed in a planning permission for such development should be consistent with the principles laid down in DOE Circular 1/85: Use of Conditions."
  That does not begin to advise Southwark or any other council as to what should be done if something like the Rose theatre is discovered. I was at the meeting of Southwark's planning committee when it was told, "You'll just have to sort it out yourselves."
  The site of the Rose theatre has been scandalously treated. I visited it again this week. Because of the former Secretary of State's refusal to reschedule the Rose, not only will the new building be inadequate in its height and other dimensions, and in ways that the late Lord Olivier and others, including the Theatres Trust, warned against, but the developers—having promised to protect the site—have dumped all kinds of material and equipment on it. The Rose is the only Elizabethan theatre ever discovered, and it happens to be of national importance—but under the non-specific wording of the draft guidance, it is entitled to no greater protection. A draft as weak as that is completely unacceptable.

  1361
  Other paragraphs deal with hotels, tourism development, retailing, and so on, but in most cases make bland or generalised statements. If the London planning advisory committee had submitted a bland or generalised document, I could not have criticised the Secretary of State for saying, "This is the advice I received, and I cannot be blamed for adopting it." But that is not what happened. The committee submitted substantial advice agreed by all the parties involved, on the basis of well-tried arguments refined over a considerable time, and finally presented earlier this year.
  That same committee is of the view that the draft strategic guidance is still inadequate. It concludes that the priorities are the provision of homes for those on low to middle incomes; a much-expanded Underground and rail investment programme; restraints on traffic, particularly in central London, to mitigate the severe and increasing problem of mobility within the capital; adequate investment in environmental improvements and renewal of the infrastructure; and increased Government financial support in helping to plan for a better quality of life.
  I make an 11th hour plea to the Minister to emphasise to his colleagues that it will do them enormous credit, and Londoners and our country enormous good, to produce the best possible guidance. This debate could be of unusual significance in the planning of London into the next century by presenting an opportunity to convert the draft into guidance of real benefit. I hope that the debate will make the Government think again and persuade them to get the guidance much more right than it is in its present form.
  4.34 am
  Mr. Clive Soley: I support much of what has been said so appropriately by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has been involved in this matter for some time, together with me and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who cannot be here tonight.
  It is appropriate that the subject for this debate follows the previous one. If the Minister has any doubt about the growing importance of the planning and land use issue, he need only run his eye over the subjects for debate tonight and he will see that at least four are directly related to planning and land use and one or two others are probably indirectly related.
  The previous debate dealt with the problems experienced mainly by Conservative Members in rural areas of southern Britain. Essentially the same problems are experienced in London. The difference between the urban and rural areas is obviously significant, but the underlying problems are not different. Much of what I said in that debate could be repeated now. Those problems relate to the crisis that results from not having a proper housing policy and when the role of local authorities, particularly in terms of planning, has been largely undermined.
  The Government are paying the price of abolishing the Greater London council, as are Londoners. The idea was that with the abolition of the GLC the Secretary of State would issue the strategic planning guidance. Contrary to the Government's wish, the other place insisted on a planning advisory committee being set up. Again, I join
  1362
  the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in congratulating the members of that committee. When it was set up the Government took the view that it would not be effective. It was, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, an all-party committee. Given the extraordinary difficulties of trying to produce a planning document on London from the sort of the base that it was operating on, it has done a good job. It is clear that that committee has done far more thinking, as have one or two other organisations, on the needs of London and its planning aspects than the Government have done.
  The first thing that I want to do is to echo strongly the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman and the many people outside the House who are concerned about these matters that the Government should not issue the final strategic planning guidance until further consultation has taken place.
  A rumour began to go round the House this morning that the Government would make a statement or publish a written answer on the issue and it took some time before it emerged that the Government were talking about issuing the final planning guidance in the next 24 hours. The rumour was an agitated one precisely because people did not know what was happening. On such important issues, where many people are worried about planning and guidance, there is a strong case for the Government undertaking not to issue the final guidance until there has been further consultation.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out that only 10 weeks were given for consultation and there were only a limited number of public statements about the matter in the press and two voluntary organisations ran conferences on it. I do not know whether the Minister has had the notes on the conference report for the Campaign for Homes in Central London, but if not, I advise him to have a look at it. He is welcome to have my copy if he so wishes.
  The level of concern among those who are aware of the importance of this matter is high. Needless to say, something like strategic planning guidance in London will not grab the headlines in the national press. However, I can say categorically that unless the Government address the issue carefully London will continue to seize up in terms of transport, affordable housing, the supply of labour and the economic problems that stem from those matters.
  An absurd contradiction lies at the heart of the Government's draft strategic planning guidance. It is the very contradiction to which I referred in the previous debate—their belief that if they reduce planning problems and lessen controls, the free market will somehow produce a solution. I repeat that that will not happen, and it is even less likely to happen in London because land is in inelastic supply, to use the market definition, because housing is slow to respond to changes in the market and because the existing planning and subsidy systems distort the market out of all recognition anyway. That means that we shall never have a free market.
  In addition, we must consider the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who quoted the Coopers and Lybrand report, which also points out the special nature of the London housing market, and I shall return to that in a moment.
  The Minister's previous boss at the Department of the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, strongly felt that if the Government could get

  1363
  local authorities off people's backs—as he would have described it—and allow free market forces to reign, that would result in a better-run society. We know that at least 100 Conservative Members believe that that argument is seriously flawed and there is reason to believe that a growing number of Conservative Back Benchers no longer believe that theory, which in my view is nonsensical.
  Let us deal first with housing. As I have said a number of times, housing is in crisis in Britain and in desperate crisis in London. I do not know how any person who is born and brought up in London and who does not earn well above the national average wage can find anywhere to rent or buy. In areas such as mine, one-bedroom flats cost about £80,000. What sort of first-time buyer can afford that? Suppose that one is looking for rented accommodation in my area. When I was elected in 1979 my council had a waiting list of about 4,000 people and hardly anyone in bed and breakfasts—and then only for short periods. It now has a waiting list of 10,000 and hundreds in some form of emergency accommodation. The council is trying to reduce the amount of bed and breakfast accommodation that it uses, but nevertheless the accommodation offered remains short-term accommodation. That is true of local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, throughout London. They are in acute crisis.
  There is no point in believing that the housing associations will solve the problem. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey did not deal with the statement in the Coopers and Lybrand report that the housing associations would never do anything except provide for a small section of the market. That is true. Housing associations have still not restored their building programmes to their mid-1970s level, yet they are being urged to take over council housing. If housing associations are being told to take over council housing—which does not add to the stock of housing—and at the same time to build, buy, repair and renovate, clearly they will not be able to supply the housing that is needed in London.
  That leaves the private sector, and that brings us to the biggest disaster of all. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment believed strongly that if the Government allowed market rents to be charged and made it easier for landlords to gain repossession, the private market would expand. It did not; it contracted, and it continues to contract. The tragedy is that for some years now, well over half the private lets in London have been outside the terms of the rent legislation, yet still the private sector is declining and still rents are increasing. I have spelt out the reasons for that before, and I do not need to go into them tonight, except to say that is caused predominantly by the way in which we subsidise housing in Britain—by the fact that a generous subsidy goes to buying and a less than generous subsidy to renting.
  Transport in London is also in crisis and that is obvious if we walk on to the streets. We have a devalued public transport system which has been run down and has suffered under-investment for many years. It is unreliable and now operates more slowly than it used to. People are also more afraid to use it, particularly late at night when they most need it.
  I remember not long ago cycling beside a traffic jam in London. When we sit in traffic jams, we often feel frustrated and angry. We might even curse the other traffic. However, when I cycled beside that jam, I witnessed the enormous and dangerous absurdity of what is happening in London today. I saw hundreds of cars and
  1364
  other vehicles standing still, belching out fumes and depleting the ozone layer, but there was usually only one person in each car. Everyone was getting nowhere fast. What nonsense.
  If the Greater London council still existed we might have more cycle groups as there are in many other cities. We do not have the facility now to provide complete London cycle routes. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, we do not have the facility to use the river to its best advantage. We have simply been told that the Secretary of State will take a view on the river. My worry about the previous Secretary of State taking a view of the river is that he might simply have stood at the top of Marsham street towers and gazed out over at the river wistfully, perhaps thinking of concreting it over. There is no policy to allow London and its surrounding areas to have a good transport and planning system designed to serve the community and to enable businesses to operate effectively.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also referred to the arts and to the Rose theatre. I congratulate Southwark council and the hon. Gentleman on what they have done in that respect. I find the whole affair utterly amazing. I still have not managed to convince Conservative Members that the Rose theatre discovery was the No. 2 headline news in the United States. It was a major story in most of western Europe and in many other countries as well.
  We should say to ourselves, very slowly, "The British have discovered the remains of the Rose theatre where Shakespeare acted. It was the first Elizabethan theatre of its kind." Shakespeare—a name that is known to everyone, not just to English people, who have had the good fortune to go to school. We should then pause and say very slowly, "The British are going to build an office block on top of it." No wonder the rest of the world cannot believe their ears.
  In purely commercial terms there is an enormous opportunity to use the Rose theatre site simply For tourism. In commercial terms, using it for tourism would far transcend the return on 20 office blocks on the site.
  There is no strategic guidance in London to deal with problems such as those with the Rose theatre. I am sure that the previous Secretary of State would have been happy to put the office block on the site whether there was a regional planning authority or not. However, it is nonsense to operate in that way.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may be aware that when the original plans which would have put the office block's piles through the theatre's stage were designed, no planning power other than scheduling could have stopped that. Had it not been for individuals surrounding the site and negotiations in which the Government and English Heritage persuaded the developers to rethink, English Heritage and the Government would have allowed the piles to be sunk. The present planning process could not stop that happening.
  Mr. Soley: That is interesting. I find the whole incident completely amazing. We will be condemned for this by future generations.
  Figures that were released yesterday by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the population of London may again be declining. The trouble

  1365
  is that it is difficult to know what is happening to the population of London and the south-east. There is a case for having a careful study of the population of Britain of the type that was carried out in the 1940s. We need some idea of population movements to get our strategic planning right.
  There is a tendency to move out of the cities again. That has certainly been happening for the past 30 or 40 years and it has been producing some of the problems that we associate with the inner city. Some people are trapped in the inner city and are unable to move either within the area or out of it, and other people are wealthy enough to move in and out of it, or even have two or more homes and be able to switch between them. As I said to Conservative Members in the previous debate, we are now finding some of the problems of the inner city emerging in rural areas. Villages are adopting the same pattern in which half the houses are empty for half the week and come to life again only at the weekend. We need to look at population movement. Again, in the draft guidance there is no sign that that matter has received the attention that it needs.
  There is a general deterioration of the environment. Opposition Members have always argued that the Conservative philosophy of the free market economy, which, as I said in the previous debate, tends to be a short-term policy, leads to private affluence amid public squalor. We are seeing that more often in and around London. The implications for the economy are serious. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey quoted the Coopers and Lybrand report. I draw the Minister's attention to the comments of the London chamber of commerce—the people in that organisation support his party—which, in 1987, said:
  "The high cost of housing in London and parts of the South East deters even highly paid staff from moving South. At the other end of the scale inexpensive housing for rent does not exist. Urgent action is needed."
  Because of the cost of housing, even international companies are having to offer additional money to people who are to go to London to work. That distorts the housing market in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned. Houses in areas such as mine are sometimes rented for up to £1,000 a week because international companies can afford such rents. Incredible rents are being demanded. That drives out the local population and makes it a difficult area for the local community to stay in.
  An important argument about London is that we have alllowed communities to splinter and become run down. One of the co-ops in Waterloo, in which the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is involved and which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and I have visited, is a good example of an attempt to recreate a strong and vibrant community. That is happening increasingly throughout London. Again, without good strategic planning we will not be successful.
  I emphasise that it is feared that the situation in London will continue to deteriorate unless the Government take planning in London seriously. They chose to abolish the GLC. I think that they were wrong, and they think that they were right. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, surely there is a need for something more than the draft strategic guidance that we have at the moment. No one can seriously believe that we
  1366
  can abolish a tier of government that dealt with matters such as transport, housing, and population, and studied the needs of areas as well as the economy, and replace it with the document that we have been given as draft guidance. There will be no serious sign for bodies outside the House about what the policy will be or how we put it into effect.
  We need a proper planning framework and more consultation. That is why I inform the Minister that there is a desperate need to make sure that the draft strategic guidance remains a draft at the moment. I plead with him to consult more widely and take account of the growing problems of London—they are affecting his own party as dramatically as any other, so he has a political interest—that are affecting employers who say that they cannot get employees, accommodation and so on in London. All that must weigh very heavily with the Minister. If it does, I suggest that he makes it clear to the House, and to those outside who are concerned about the matter, that the Government will not go ahead with the final document until they have consulted more widely and in much more depth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? That is the case.
  4.55 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The major plea from Opposition Members has been for a delay in the publication of the strategic guidance. I respond to that by making two points. First, having listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I have noted a number of points that have been made already in representations and during the consultation phase on the draft strategic guidance, which urged changes from the draft to the final document. Many of the points raised this morning have been covered. When later today, in everyday parlance and tomorrow in parliamentary parlance, the strategic guidance is published, hon. Members will be pleased to see that a number of their important points have been taken into account.
  Secondly, consultation on the preparation of the guidance began in 1986, and it is our view that it would be wrong to prolong that process further. The reason why we believe that is because London needs an effective up-to-date series of unitary development plans in place as soon as possible, or plans will simply not keep pace with the rapid changes taking place in London.
  Opposition Members will have noted that, while I have been with this portfolio only since sunrise this morning, I have tried to maximise the number of hours available to look at the strategic guidance document against the draft and against the representations that were made, some of which I will comment on. I am satisfied that a number, not all—Opposition Members would not expect all—of their points have been covered in the extended final draft, which we intend to send to all London Members of Parliament and to place in the Library tomorrow.
  The publication of the guidance marks an important stage in the introduction of the new planning arrangements in London, based on the unitary development plans which will be prepared by the boroughs. That new system of plans will replace the present two-tier

  1367
  system based on the dated Greater London development plan prepared in the 1960s, and local plans prepared by the boroughs.
  The guidance will provide a framework for the boroughs to prepare the well-focused and effective unitary development plans which London needs as it faces the challenges and opportunities of the 1990s.
  It is important to remember what the guidance is, and what it is not. It is not intended as a comprehensive "masterplan" for London setting out policies for all planning issues in this great city. Those who still think that it is the job of Government to impose such a design will be disappointed. The Government believe that such an approach is inflexible and wrong. The future of London must be shaped, above all, by the initiative and energies of its local communities, businesses and people, not by blueprints laboriously prepared and handed down from above.
  The purpose of the guidance is straightforward. It is to assist the boroughs to prepare their UDPs by setting out clearly the Secretary of State's guidance on those land use planning matters that need to be dealt with on a Londonwide basis. It also draws the planning authorities' attention to other statements of the Government's planning policies in planning policy guidance notes and circulars. It does not deal with aspects that are essentially local, because we believe that each borough is best placed to decide those matters with all relevant interests as they prepare their UDP. The guidance will be kept under review to reflect changing circumstances.
  Mr. Soley: The Metropolitan police, who are a Londonwide body but are not controlled by an elected authority, are regarded as being important enough to be allocated a debate in Government time in which London Members take part. Given the way that the Minister is describing the purpose of the guidance and given that he wants local authorities to take their guidance from the Secretary of State, will he suggest to his colleagues in the Department and to the Leader of the House that a day should he set aside for a debate on the guidance that is issued annually?
  Mr. Moynihan: More than anyone else, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me. I shall put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
  I stress that the guidance is concerned with matters directly relevant to the use and development of land. It concentrates on matters that the town and country planning system can sensibly and properly influence. It is a dangerous illusion to imagine that planning guidance and unitary development plans are a suitable instrument for tackling every problem that London faces. That is a recipe for discrediting the planning system. For example, the problems of skills mismatch and access to housing are important issues to which the Government are addressing a range of initiatives in training and housing policy. Planning powers can make only a limited contribution to alleviating such problems. It would be wrong for the Secretary of State in his guidance to pretend otherwise.
  The objectives of the guidance, which should be reflected in UDPs, are to foster economic growth, bearing in mind the importance for the national economy of London's continuing prosperity; to contribute to revitalising the older urban areas; to facilitate the
  1368
  development of transport systems which are safe, efficient and have proper respect for the environment; to maintain the vitality and character of established town centres:, to sustain and improve the amenity of residential districts; to allow for a wide range of housing provision; and to give high priority to the environment, maintain the green belt and metropolitan open land, preserve fine views, conservation areas, surrounding countryside and the natural heritage.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will allow me to write to him about the distinction that he made between green belt and metropolitan open land. That subject has not appeared on my desk as rapidly as it should have today, but I am sure that it will in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will write to him on that point and on any other that I am unable to answer.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is reading from a paragraph that is no doubt entitled "objectives of the guidance." Does he now include in the final guidance a transport objective, which did not appear in the original guidance? Does he accept, as he seemed to in his introduction, that guidance that takes as its premise economic growth, but which exludes other dimensions, is imbalanced? The fundamental criticism of the guidance is that it predicates economic growth and does not acknowledge that transport and other planning must be co-ordinated so that growth is not prevented by all the other features and failures that have been identified.
  Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that predication of economic growth is not at the heart of the final version of the guidance. Many of its aspects take into account a range of other important issues, not least transport, about which I can speak from constituency experience. The assessment studies take into account issues wider than those of borough interest. Quite rightly, they must take into account not only economic growth but other aspects of the environment. Of course I support a balanced approach to the development and planning of London.
  The guidance takes into account the advice put forward by the London advisory committee on behalf of the London boroughs.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister say whether a transport objective is now included?
  Mr. Moynihan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been an elaboration of the transport issue, not in the form of specially defined objectives, but as additions to the draft because of representations made.
  We welcomed the constructive spirit in which the advice was prepared and put forward. We were also pleased to see that in not much more than two years from the abolition of the GLC, all 33 boroughs could reach agreement on the advice. The hon. Gentleman highlighted that point. That was an important and constructive move forward and it has been taken into account.
  My right hon. Friend has welcomed and given the greatest attention to the London planning advisory committee's advice in preparing his guidance. Our approaches and emphasis differ on some aspects, but there is a great deal of common ground between us and the boroughs on many matters, and that is reflected in the guidance.

  1369
  We share, for instance, a common commitment to the importance of protecting the green belt and metropolitan open land, and the value of other local areas of open space and "green chains" of open land in the built-up area. The guidance gives high priority to both the natural and the built environment. It covers nature conservation, protection of buildings of special architectural and historic importance, conservation areas, preservation of ancient monuments and their settings, protection of views and the character of the River Thames.
  The hon. Gentleman commented specifically about the Rose theatre. He will be interested to see that the paragraph on achitecture has been amplified.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: That is a bit late.
  Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that no specific theatre, however considerable and important its merits—I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman on that point—is mentioned in the document.
  We have also taken account of the LPAC's advice in giving guidance on the number of additional dwellings for which each of the boroughs should make provision in their UDPs in the period up to 2001 and these figures are set out in the guidance. It is for the boroughs in the UDPs to indicate suitable locations, densities and standards of parking so that they can decide how best to accommodate the additional housing within their area without detriment to the local environment.
  I have already touched on the question of access to housing. The Government recognise the importance of providing housing for lower and middle-income households in London. The main way we are achieving this is through housing policies to encourage forms of low-cost home ownership and the provision of rented accommodation by the independent sector. Last year we also carried out a consultancy study to examine the potential for major housing development, including low-cost housing of five large underused sites in east London. We are keeping in close touch with the local authorities and landowners concerned to ensure that these sites come forward for development.
  Planning can also play a part. Planning conditions cannot normally be used to impose restrictions on tenure or occupancy and we do not support, therefore, policies which aim to impose such conditions. They would be unenforceable and likely to lead only to unproductive wrangling between local planning authorities and potential developers. But the planning system can help by ensuring that there is an adequate and continuing supply of land for new housing, and that UDP policies on densities and conversions take account of the demand for smaller units.
  The continuing prosperity of London as one of the world's foremost business and financial centres is vital for the national economy and employment. That is why it is essential to provide a favourable climate for business investment and development, while taking careful account of the effects on the local environment and transport. The regeneration of docklands has shown that a positive, flexible and realistic approach to new business development is essential in order to revive rundown areas of inner
  1370
  and east London. Much progress has been made under this Government in returning prosperity to these areas. Many further opportunities will arise in the next few years with the Government's massive programme of road improvements and proposed rail investment in east London, and the release of large sites previously required by public utilities and services.
  The guidance devotes considerable attention to transport and land use matters. It explains the Government's broad strategic approach and current initiatives to improve transport conditions in London and relieve congestion, and sets out committed public transport and trunk road investment which the boroughs will need to take into account in preparing their UDPs.
  London's transport systems have come under increasing pressure in recent years. I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the impact of that on London. To a large extent, it is the result of the growth of prosperity and economic activity which inevitably brings with it increasing traffic movement. The Government are firmly committed to improving London's transport systems in order to sustain economic growth and development and increase travellers' comforts and the comforts of local residents who are affected. The guidance describes current action being undertaken to achieve this and the proposals for further investment. Taken together, these measures represent the most ambitious package of transport improvements in London for decades.
  The Government's main aim now—and I believe that it is shared by the boroughs—is to implement successfully and quickly the new system based on the unitary development plans. It is important to achieve a good coverage of UDPs in London as soon as possible within the framework provided by strategic guidance. The Secretary of State has made a commencement order for 28 of the 33 planning authorities in London to begin work on their UDPs. This will take effect from 11 August. The remaining boroughs will be included in a further commencement order at about the end of the year.
  Many boroughs have already started preliminary work on their UDPs and I look for them to make rapid progress, reaching deposit stage within two years, or considerably sooner in some cases where there is already a good, up-to-date local plan. The UDPs will provide an up-to-date framework for development control, which should contribute to quicker decisions on planning applications. By providing greater certainty about the intentions of planning authorities, they can assist developers and public services in considering future investment and the allocation of resources. The process of plan preparation also enables members of the public and local voluntary groups and business to participate in decisions affecting the future of their areas.
  The Government believe that London has achieved and maintained its greatness by its ability to adapt to change and take advantage of new opportunities, while respecting and conserving the environment and use inheritance from the past. The role of the land use planning process is to facilitate development while protecting the local environment. That is the keynote of the Secretary of State's guidance, which should be reflected in the new UDPs. I urge the boroughs and their local communities to grasp the opportunity provided by the new arrangements to prepare truly effective plans to take London into the next decade.

  Abortion Act 1967
  5.11 am
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: At the end of a parliamentary Session which has seen the pro-life movement inside and outside Parliament at its most active, it is appropriate that we should debate the administration of the Abortion Act 1967, although some of us would have preferred the debate to take place at a more civilised time.
  I am grateful to the Minister for being with us at this late hour and I welcome the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who applied for similar debates.
  During the passage of the Abortion Act in 1967, the then hon. Member for Maidstone was reprimanded by Mr. Deputy Speaker for reading a newspaper in the Chamber. He defended himself by saying that he was briefing himself for taking part in the debate. I have a feeling that the present hon. Member for Maidstone will need no such aid tonight, and I look forward to hearing her contribution.
  When the Abortion Act was passed in 1967 it was claimed that it would be the answer to many problems, and few could be found to oppose it. Indeed, only 29 hon. Members voted against it on Second Reading. It was said at that time that the Act would reduce the rate of illegitimacy. Now, over 21 years later, it is running at 15 per cent. and rising. We were assured in 1967 that the Act would mean that every child would be a wanted child. Today, every time we pick up a newspaper we read of yet more cases of sexual or physical child abuse. In 1967 women were assured that the Abortion Act would make them free. Today, there is a dramatic increase in requests for post-abortion counselling, so damaged are many women by the abortions that they have had.
  Far from solving society's ills, easier abortion has resulted in more problems and I believe that many people are coming to accept that no problem is so big or serious that only the death of a helpless, unborn child will solve it. The right to life is the most basic of all human rights and we in the pro-life movement will continue to speak up for the small, naked, nameless and voiceless being which is the unborn child.
  This morning I wish to concentrate my remarks not on the major victims of abortion—the mother and child—but on those who are victims of discrimination because they wish to have nothing to do with abortion.
  Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 provides that except where it is necessary to save life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman,
  "no person shall be under any duty … to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection."
  That conscience clause protects all those who are expected to play a part in the team effort leading to an abortion once the decision to perform an abortion has been reached. It therefore protects doctors, nurses, pharmacists, ancillary staff and clerical workers who play a necessary part in carrying out an abortion.
  Those with conscientious objections to abortion are protected in the following ways. Staff may not be asked to make appointments for patients to have abortions. Nurses or paramedics may not be asked to help undress a patient admitted to hospital to have an abortion; and they may not be required to prepare the patient for the operation.
  1372
  Operating theatre staff may not be required to prepare the theatre or sterilise instruments for abortion. If a theatre is used exclusively or almost exclusively for abortions, a conscientious objector may not be required to take part in the work of swabbing down either before or after an operating session; neither shall he or she be required to clean instruments or tubes used in abortion procedures.
  Unfortunately, however, there are many different ways in which the present conscience clause of the Abortion Act does not work effectively. Management can indicate that promotion prospects will be damaged if medical personnel do not take part in abortions. Candidates for interview for medical appointments will not be successful in some cases unless they agree in advance that they will take part in abortions. Peer group pressure—the burden falling upon other overworked medical personnel—can persuade individuals to become involved in abortions about which they are unhappy. Ancillary workers, such as medical secretaries, may be dismissed if they refuse to become involved. Unless an individual has been informed of his or her rights to object to becoming involved in abortions, when confronted with a problem, that person is unlikely to know how to opt out. For all those reasons and for many more, it is clear that the conscience clause does not work in practice and that it should be reviewed.
  The case of the Carlisle baby is an example of the fear under which some doctors and nurses work. I need hardly remind the House that the case involved a baby who was aborted at 21 weeks and survived for almost four hours. Through the protests of nurses, who appealed to the local Catholic chaplain, the case came to light. However, they were terrified of losing their jobs. I stress that the young doctor who was called to see the baby when it continued to struggle to breathe was opposed to the Abortion Act and had refused to become involved in performing abortions. The gynaecologist who was responsible for the abortion had gone off duty and when he was asked to return, he refused.
  Thus, nurses who disliked the operation and a conscientious young man who had opted not to carry out abortions were left to cope with the results of somebody else's work. Apart from the baby's horrifying death, the Carlisle case epitomises the total ineffectiveness of the conscience clause. Nurses who were too frightened to opt out became involved in abortions on their wards. When there was an inquiry, they were too frightened to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. A young doctor was made to appear the villain of the piece and left to cope with the remains of someone else's botched-up piece of butchery.
  I was recently told of a matron who said at a meeting:
  "The Conscience clause works in theory … but it most certainly does not work in practice. I have to run a hospital and I cater for shifts, holidays, staff illness, ensuring that patients are looked after throughout their treatment."
  Obviously this is bound to create problems and it is hardly surprising that in some hospitals—although not all—nurses are made to feel that by opting out they are creating problems or being anti-social.
  In others the pressures go further than that. Perhaps one of the most extreme cases about which I have been told is that involving a young African nurse who, on being appointed a staff nurse at a London hospital, made it absolutely clear that she was opposed to abortion and that she would take part in abortion operations only to save the mother's life. For a year she was left in peace. However, she began working at nights and her duties involved her

  1373
  with patients in the hospital who were having abortions. At night, the number of staff was limited and the technique most commonly used in this hospital, which carried out private abortions, was to insert at some time during the night, prostaglandin pessaries in the vagina to soften the cervix before surgical intervention. The nurse refused to insert such a pessary.
  At first, one senior, presume taking advantage of the fact that the nurse was foreign, told her that she could be charged for refusing to obey the law. Far from cowering, I am delighted to say, this outraged the young woman, and she made it clear that she would go to prison rather than become involved in an abortion. Her senior then became rather more devious, bringing all manner of pressure to bear on her, and picking on her work. Finally, in a great attempt to be persuasive and reasonable, the senior urged the nurse that she was not asking her to do anything unreasonable, and that all she had to do was to put the prostaglandin pessary on the patient's bedside table, instructing her how to insert it. The nurse was told that that would not involve her in an abortion and was the least required of her under the law.
  At that point, the nurse, who was an evangelical Christian, went to her church minister, who put her in touch with the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which sent her a solicitor's letter and guaranteed all her legal fees if the hospital persisted in its conduct. The girl sent the letter to the hospital authorities and was left in peace.
  How many other young women have similar experiences but are not put in touch with people who can counsel them? The case involving Trent regional health authority came to light as a result of the work of CARE and the SPUC, but I wonder what would have happened if they had not learnt what was going on.
  The Lane report referred to complaints that chances of promotion in the disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology may be lost by those with a conscientious objection to the termination of pregnancy, but believed that it was probable that that affected only those departments where there were few staff or where the workload was heavy. Complaints and allegations of discrimination have been received, especially about fully qualified doctors who are debarred from appointments. Nurses are also affected, and their general position is difficult.
  The Lane report said that, in the National Health Service, the Abortion Act 1967 has brought unhappiness to hospital nurses. The Royal College of Nursing has said that some nurses are reluctant to exercise their right to contract out under section 4 because to do so would create problems for their colleagues.
  I shall let some of those who have suffered speak for themselves by reading out their letters. The first says:
  "Dear Sir,
  I shall be most grateful if you will give me some advice re: abortion for I am having problems at work.
  The position is that I am a midwife working on the labour ward at a large London hospital. We do a lot of scans, for we have an excellent scan department, so patients are referred from all over the country. Also they do fetoscopies on patients not only referred from around the country but from abroad. Many of our patients are found to have abnormal foetuses more so than from a normal catchment area, so this causes problems, for although many of the referrals go back to their home area for abortions, lots are aborted here (for they want the foetus for research purposes).
  1374
  Three years ago when I applied for the post in London I made my position regarding abortions clear—that is that I would not wish to be involved in abortions at all. The then senior midwife assured me that this was not a problem for they rarely did abortions. However, while this was true three years ago, it certainly is not the case now.
  The senior midwife has changed three times since then and at present we have no direct person in charge on labour ward so all the sisters have a share of power. As far as I can see they all agree with abortions, and while some don't like them being done on labour ward, none can accept my objections to caring for these patients.
  So at least once a week there is trouble and I find myself having to argue my point. This has happened before, the pattern seems to recur every few months. I have up to this been reluctant to go to the chief nursing officer for I know what will happen: I will simply be moved off labour ward. Also I know it will not go well in my records, and seeking references in the future is a consideration.
  I do feel very unhappy about this, apart from religious views, on an emotional level I find it difficult to cope and would find it absolutely impossible to give advice and support to a woman having an abortion while I feel so strongly that it is wrong. Just before Christmas they aborted an abnormal foetus, but at delivery it was perfect, it nearly broke my heart. The Abortion Act 1967 does have a conscience clause, but no one pays attention to it. I asked the student nurses about the position on the 'gynaecology' ward where all the social abortions are done. They said they are not allowed to opt out. If they were Catholics then they could object and would not be sent to the gynaecology ward at all, so missing this experience, but also making themselves unpopular.
  A doctor whom I asked about this issue … said they fare even worse than midwives, for they are all but told if you don't want to do abortions don't bother coming into obs and gynaecology.
  I should be interested to hear your view and would appreciate any advice you can offer."
  A second letter said:
  "I work in an operating theatre in a London hospital as a trainee O.D.A. We work as scrubbed assistants to assist the surgeon and also as anaesthetic assistants.
  We have operations for women when they have had a miscarriage and they are called E.R.P.C. (evacuation of retained products at conception). However, it has come to my attention that some of these are actually 'clean-ups' after hormonally induced abortions. There is no way they indicate these women have been having a miscarriage as the result of a dose of hormones.
  I feel extremely compassionate for women who have had a genuine miscarriage, but I am worried and upset about those miscarriages that aren't really miscarriages. At work I was told that any miscarriage is a miscarriage, and that since it isn't an abortion they have not got to tell us that it is a hormonally induced miscarriage and that I have no right to refuse them. I want your point of view on this."
  A third letter sent to the SPUC said:
  "I am employed as a staff nurse at my local hospital to work in the general operating department. Occasionally I am put down on the duty rota to assist in the day care theatre during the gynaecological lists which often include as many as ten abortions. I have stated my objection to assisting in abortions to the senior sister who will only assure me that I would not have to be the instrument (or scrub) nurse. However she does expect me to be present in the theatre to assist setting up the theatre, tying gowns, opening packs and clearing away, believing that this role cannot be described as 'being involved'. On Wednesday 16th September I attended a meeting at Bideford parish church where a speaker from S.P.U.C. showed us your video on abortion. Since then I feel very strongly that I must make a committed stand against the abortions taking place in my hospital and … have absolutely nothing to do with them.
  Before I go and see the senior sister again I would appreciate your advice on how far I can take the clause in the 1967 abortion act in making a conscientious objection to assisting in abortion. Can I refuse to be present in the theatre during an abortion?"

  1375
  The letters that I have read out give some indication of the problems faced by many members of the medical profession since the 1967 Act came into force. Clearly we are putting an unfair burden on the consciences of many people. Some can be helped—as they have been—by pro-life organisations like the SPUC and its conscience code, but many others are unaware of their rights and afraid to exercise them.
  Others—as in the case of Mrs. Barbara Janaway—do not appear to have rights under the Act. Mrs. Janaway, a medical receptionist, was dismissed after refusing to type abortion documents, and it was held that she was not entitled to the protection of the "conscientious objection" clause because she was not participating in a termination of pregnancy in the meaning of the Act.
  Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon introduced the Abortion (Right of Conscience) (Amendment) Bill, while I introduced a similar Bill to cover ancillary workers. The Bills were based on a simple principle: doctors, nurses and ancillary workers should not be expected or required to be involved in any way in the performing of abortions unless they had first made it clear that they had no conscientious objections to being so involved.
  This reverses the current impractical position in which doctors and nurses are required to take part in abortions unless they declare that they have conscientious objections to such involvement. The Bill took the sensible approach of requiring those involved to opt in rather than to opt out of abortion. The Bill's purpose was to prevent medical and ancillary personnel from being cajoled or pressurised into taking part in abortions when they did not wish to do so. That suggestion has merit and would help to resolve what is undoubtedly worrying many medical staff. I hope that if a similar Bill is introduced next year the Government will look favourably on it.
  5.30 am
  Mr. David Amess: Despite the late hour, I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has given the House to debate the administration of the Abortion Act 1967. I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) for the magnificent job that they have done in the past year to make sure that the fundamental issue of abortion is raised in the House on every conceivable opportunity so that it does not move far from the minds of hon. Members.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for the courtesy that he has shown in responding to all our debates and in providing us quickly with the information that we have sought. Our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has a close interest in these matters and I am pleased to see him here for the debate. It would be extremely churlish of me not to mention the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), because, although we fundamentally disagree with her view on the subject, at least she recognises the great importance of the matter and is here to take part in the debate.
  I hope that when the Minister responds he will tell us about the Government's intentions on the Warnock report. I note that only this week his Department issued a strict new code of practice governing the use of the foetus and foetal material in treatment and research. I trust that
  1376
  he will take this opportunity to enlarge on the issue. Perhaps he will also give some detail about how the Government intend to handle the Warnock report.
  Will there be an opportunity to vote on the time at which an abortion can be obtained? I hope that every party in the House will allow a free vote on the time limit. It would be conceived nationally as an outrage if any political party imposed a Whip on that issue. There is little point in being a Member of Parliament if the House cannot meet and decide that protection is needed in respect of the time at which life begins. A recent newspaper story carried the headline:
  "Tiny Thomas wins brave battle for life".
  The story says:
  "Tiny Thomas Johnson shouldn't even have been born until the end of next month.
  But already he is 10 weeks old and doing very nicely, thank you.
  Doctors even refused to speculate on his chances of surviving after he was born 16 weeks premature and weighing just 11b 15oz in May.
  `They just said we would have to take it hour by hour, day by day,' said proud mum Christine Johnson of Wood Street, Elton, Bury."
  That is what we are debating. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn spoke about the Bill that I sought to introduce on the conscience clause, but I shall direct my remarks to the financial involvement of private clinics. I am proud to be a Conservative. I have no trouble dealing with the profit motive that we enjoy in this country. However, I am outraged that anyone should make a profit out of the abortion industry. When Abortion Act was being debated in 1967, a press conference was held by pro-life gynaecologists, and it attracted much abuse because one of the doctors described what was then the Abortion Bill as a
  "licence to print money for the shady end of the medical profession."
  Doctors pleading for the law to be passed immediately protested that money was the last thing to be included on their agenda. They simply wanted to help poor women in need of support. Yet, when the law came into effect, in the words of Sir John Peel, at that time the Queen's gynaecologist as well as president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
  "they all removed themselves from the back streets to the front streets".
  Once there, they increased their fees and the number of patients beyond belief.
  It was hardly surprising that within only a few months, London became known as the abortion capital of the world—and once the United States Supreme Court had made its famous and disastrous decision to allow abortion on demand up to birth, we saw London reduced to the abortion capital of Europe. I need hardly say that abortionists made a large amount of money as a result of the passage of the Act.
  However, life was not as easy as the abortionist believed that it would be. As we know, doctors and clinics cannot advertise. Thus, in order to reach the public, they needed some way in which to promote their service. Without the ability to advertise, they were held back. Then somebody had the brilliant idea of opening an agency, called the Pregnancy Advisory Service. There was no law to stop it from advertising. In turn, it would refer the girls who responded to its posters on stations, in tubes, at bus stops and in newspapers to the abortionists and, overnight, a considerable amount of money was made.

  1377
  Such is the way of the media that these agencies were presented as some kind of guardian angels, looking after the well-being of girls in need. In fact, they were abortion referral agencies that got round the existing law and touted for clients through advertising. Shortly after they first came into being, two of them succeeded in getting themselves registered as charities. I would not suggest that they have broken any charity laws, but I would add that whereas most of us think of charities as made up of people acting from love, there is little doubt that doctors and others in the service of charitable pregnancy advisory services have been provided with incomes from their labours.
  In the case of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—for example—its total income in the year 1986 was £4,383,000. Of that, £2,176,000 went on staff salaries and wages and a further £750,000 went on medical and doctors' fees—meaning that about 67 per cent. went on salaries and fees. In comparison, only £536,000–12 per cent.—was spent on medical and other supplies. Even more surprising—considering that we are talking about a charity—is the fact that the minute sum of £32,000 was given in grants to "indigent patients" and a further £51,000 was "written off" in loans to patients. In other words this charity gave only 1·9 per cent. of its income to patients in comparison with over 66 per cent. in payments to doctors, nurses and others.
  Over the years many of us have had cause to become increasingly worried about the quality of the counselling that is given to girls through the so-called pregnancy advisory services. Is the advice given more to the benefit of the doctors and others than to the girls?
  Bernadette Thompson, to name one girl, runs British Victims of Abortion. It is an organisation which helps women who are experiencing trauma. Bernadette had an abortion about 16 years ago through the services of a pregnancy advisory counsellor, and a charitable pregnancy advisory service at that, but she would say that she received no counselling. She was merely referred for an abortion, an operation which she has regretted ever since. There are many thousands of women suffering as Bernadette Thompson did.
  About six weeks ago there was an article about Bernadette and her experience and the work of British Victims of Abortion in the women's magazine Bella. Within one week Bernadette received over 150 calls from women asking for help, and some of them had been grieving for a number of years. She is still receiving calls. This shows the sort of feeling that there must be throughout the country among women who have gone through similar experiences and have since regretted it. Many of the women had been aborted through so-called charities and they did not want to return to them for support and help during their grieving.
  There are many who do not agree with me on the principle of abortion. I know that the hon. Member for Barking is one of them. I make no secret of my opposition to the killing of unborn children, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Yet when he introduced the Abortion (Financial Benefit) Bill, he was amazed by the amount of support he received. The aim of the Bill was to hit directly at profiteers in the private sector. It aimed to sever the
  1378
  links between abortion agencies and private clinics, and called on medical practitioners referring women for abortion to make a declaration that they had no financial interest in the place where the abortions were performed and derived no benefit from it.
  As most hon. Members will be aware, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists opposed any amendment to the Abortion Act 1967 yet even the college wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield:
  "We have seen in the press that you intend to introduce a Private Members' Bill to implement the recommendations of the 1976 Select Committee on abortion, so that there should be no financial links between doctors and agencies who refer women for abortions, and the institutions in which abortions are carried out.
  We at the Royal College would like to support the spirit in what you are trying to achieve, as we think that this, after all, is only right and proper."
  Among the groups who were threatened by the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was a company. I am loth to use parliamentary privilege on this occasion and so I shall call the company Miss Y. It advertised its pregnancy advisory services. Clients—not patients—were referred to a hospital by a Mr. X, who was not a medical doctor. He was a business man who ran a private clinic.
  The matter becomes much more worrying when we realise that Miss Y, who runs the agency, is none other than Mr. X's wife. Not surprisingly, they have become extremely wealthy. Their business covers abortions and cosmetic surgery, as a result of which they were exposed on the "That's Life" programme in January 1985. That programme revealed that medical services offered in connection with cosmetic surgery through certain advisory agencies had led to tragic results. The same programme also exposed other abortionists. It apparently takes a certain kind of mentality to exploit unhappiness, whether it be caused by an unplanned pregnancy or dissatisfaction with one's appearance.
  Mr. X responded to that broadcast by threatening to sue the BBC—a tactic he apparently uses to silence anyone who attacks his methods. When a newspaper announced Mr. X's intention to open a hospital to perform abortions, he threatened legal action against a group that leafleted the area in an attempt to arouse public opposition to his plans. He claimed that the newspaper story was incorrect, but seemed to make no attempt to have a correction published.
  Late in 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was informed that eight referral agencies had financial links with clinics providing abortions. The number rose to 32 when he asked about individuals who were directors or trustees both of companies or charities providing abortions and counselling and of clinics offering abortions.
  There is no doubt that immense fortunes are made from abortion clinics. The answer to a parliamentary question tabled at the end of 1987 revealed that a total of 594 beds in private clinics were licensed for abortions, and that 114,621 abortions were performed that year. That meant that each bed was used an average of 193 times a year.
  At that time, the cost of a private abortion, including the referral agency's charges, was, at a conservative estimate, £200—thus producing an income of £38,592 per licensed bed. The total turnover realised from that barbaric industry reached £22,923,648 annually. As a Conservative, I am absolutely ashamed at the profit that is made from destroying lives. Returning to Mr. X, the income of the private nursing home of which he is a

  1379
  director, and which is provided with clients by his wife, totalled £810,600. That is not a bad income from a clinic with only 21 beds.
  Earlier I spoke of a "barbaric industry." When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) introduced his Bill, a video showing a D and E abortion was introduced to this country. In the earliest stages of abortion, a technique known as D and C—dilation and curettage—is used, whereby the mouth of the womb is dilated and a curette is used to scrape the inside, in the process of which the foetus is cut to pieces.
  After about the 12th week of pregnancy, a curette is not sufficiently strong enough to tear apart the bone structure and limbs of the unborn baby, so the instruments used are decidedly stronger. They are rather like those used in carpentry and other forms of building work. A different title is given to that technique. It is known as dilation and extraction. That sounds harmless enough, but the video "Eclipse of Reason" proved otherwise, and showed precisely what an abortion of that type involves.
  One aspect of pro-abortionists that worries me most is the way that they distort the truth, while pro-lifers are told by politicians of all shades of opinion that dilation and extraction is not a form of abortion that is performed in Britain. The pro-abortionists plant newspaper stories claiming that pro-lifers arouse public feeling in an emotive fashion, with stories of outdated abortion techniques not used in this country.
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitors show that those claims are untrue. Far from D and E being used less, it is on the increase, particularly in private clinics. There are several reasons for that. It can be upsetting for nurses, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn referred, caring for a patient having an abortion by the use of prostaglandin to see a whole baby emerge when the abortion takes place. In contrast, D and E ensures that nothing but mangled pieces, often crushed and battered beyond recognition, emerges.
  A second reason is that the D and E takes far less time than a prostaglandin abortion. When money has to be made and the whole procedure has to be completed as speedily and efficiently as possible, why not use the technique which takes the least amount of time?
  I was sickened when I met a doctor who had just visited a private abortion clinic in London which specialises in late abortions. There the pieces torn from the baby were so large that huge pieces of arm and leg of spine were put through one of those large mincing machines that we see in butchers' shops to enable them to pass through the sluice.
  I conclude with the latest figures. In 1987 in the private sector 12,222 abortions were carried out at 13 weeks or more and of those 3,698—nearly one third—were carried out by D and E. Those tiny humans, whom we know feel pain, are being destroyed for money. That is the kind of barbarity which I and my hon. Friends are determined to stop.
  I shall never cease to be amazed at the manner in which some of those involved in the abortion industry seek to deceive themselves. The chairman of the trustees of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service wrote to doctors saying that abortion does not typically require them to diagnose and treat a morbid condition, but rather to consider the wishes, wonders and worries of normal people in normal health.
  1380
  Is that really the way in which they bemuse themselves when they tear a child limb from limb, having to put the larger pieces through a mincing machine in order to get them down the sluice?
  I and my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight are appalled by that, and the British nation will join us in our abhorrence.
  5.52 am
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on securing a debate for which several hon. Members applied, because it is an issue, which has dominated the last two parliamentary years. Frequently, attempts to resolve some of the worries that have been voiced tonight have been defeated, not because a body of opinion in the House resented what was being done but because we were not allowed to have a free and fair vote.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm our hope that when the Warnock proposals come up For discussion next year we can have a free and fair vote on issues other than those strictly raised in the Warnock report.
  The debate is on the Abortion Act 1967, which is administered far more in the breach than in the observance. In particular, there are several areas of concern where specific questions can be asked which I hope that my hon. Friend will answer.
  In the first case, I am concerned about the administration of the Act and the way in which it takes on board the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. In an Adjournment debate on 8 June, my hon. Friend the Minister accepted that it was necessary to observe the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in the administration of the 1967 Act. In response to a point that I made in that debate, which was principally about the Carlisle baby, he said:
  "Doctors are properly mindful of the requirements of the Act and do not carry out an abortion, by any method, when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive."—[Official Report, 8 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 465.]
  My question to the Minister is this: if they do not carry out abortions when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive, what is the purpose of the injection of urea or saline, which is commonly used in the prostaglandin treatment to ensure that the child is born dead? What is the point of ensuring that a child is born dead if the doctor does not believe that it is capable of being born alive in the first place? The Act is not administered to take account of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
  We now know that children are capable of surviving independently from the 24th week. Yet in a parliamentary answer the Minister told us that last year there were 17 cases of abortions after the 24th week, six of which were not even for handicap or to save the life of the mother; they were done under the social clauses. Will the Minister explain how he can reconcile the statement that doctors do not abort children capable of being born alive with the fact that they abort children of a gestational age in excess of that at which children do survive, and at which such survivals are fully documented?
  In the light of the recent spate of survivals at 22 weeks, how can doctors abort after that age and seriously believe that the child is not capable of being born alive? In the

  1381
  Carlisle baby case, in which the abortion took place at 21 weeks, the child was not just capable of being born alive; she was actually born alive.
  Will the Minister consider outlawing completely the D and E method? There is no good reason for dismembering alive in the womb, without anaesthetic, a child which in different circumstances would be in an incubator, loved and cherished, with everyone desperately fighting for his or her survival. Can the Minister imagine circumstances in which a child in an incubator could be dismembered alive? Can he imagine a National Health Service or a Ministry that was responsible for licensing private clinics allowing that? If it cannot be done to a child in an incubator, why should he allow it to be done to a child in the womb? It is not just a question of medical or clinical judgment—the panacea behind which so many of these issues disappear. It is not down to clinical judgment whether we dismember alive babies in the womb. It is a clear moral issue for society. There is an optional method. I do not particularly like that either, but at least it does not involve cruelty. That is the prostaglandin method.
  Will the Minister bring into general conformity with the rest of operations abortions involving children under the age of 16? If a child needs its tonsils out, it must have parental consent for the general anaesthetic that will be applied. Yet in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Minister said that young girls under the age of 16 do not require their parents' consent to have an abortion performed under general anaesthetic. Why is abortion singled out for exemption? Why is a child not allowed to decide to have her tonsils out when she is allowed to decide to kill an unborn child—at an age when she cannot possibly have a concept of the consequences and of all the moral issues involved, for which, surely, she requires parental guidance?
  Then there is the question of the unperson, to use an Orwellian phrase. When I asked the Minister about the case of the Carlisle baby, and asked why the child was allowed to stay for three hours, breathing, with a pulse rate, fully alive—so much so that the nurses saw fit to baptise her—he replied that resuscitation equipment was not provided, and she was not registered for birth, and she was not registered for death, all for the same reason: the doctor in the case had decided that it was not a live birth.
  If a living, breathing human being can survive for three hours, how can a doctor say that that is not a live birth and that none of the rights of life follows? If a small premature baby as a result of a normal premature birth is alive, then a small premature baby as a result of an abortion is alive. The Abortion Act 1967 is not administered fairly or equitably. Anything goes when it comes to an abortion. There is no way that a child born normally could be declared a non-person.
  There is also the nonsense of piecemeal legislation for the foetus at all stages of development. The Warnock report proposes experiments up to 14 days. In the same breath, the Polkinghorne report states that foetal tissue may be used in the second trimester, which is from the 12th to the 24th week. Those two reports are not taken in conjunction with the Abortion Act 1967 and considered comprehensively. They are being taken piecemeal.
  When it discusses Warnock the House will probably be deceived into believing that nothing will happen after the
  1382
  14th day. But Polkinghorne states that experiments can occur at horrendously late stages. Will the Minister admit that we need one comprehensive Abortion Bill which reviews the working of the Abortion Act 1967, considers the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the financial administration—a matter raised so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)—examines the workings of the conscience clause, and considers foetal tissue and embryology research. One Bill should do all that to clarify those issues and sort them out once and for all. We do not need a long series of attempts to amend each and every working of the gross Abortion Act 1967.
  Is the Minister convinced that the Abortion Act 1967, in its own terms, is adhered to? The Carlisle baby was aborted under the terms of a clause which states that if there is a substantial risk, not just some sort of risk, of serious—and not any old sort—of handicap, that is grounds for an abortion. The Carlisle baby had a 50 per cent. chance of inheriting a very rare disease of which her father had only a mild form. Where does a substantial risk of serious handicap occur there? Will the Minister admit that abortions have been carried out for club foot, hare lips and all sorts of minor handicaps? The Abortion Act 1967 is not even policed properly in its own terms and there is no will to police it. Does the Minister believe that new advice should be issued, if not a comprehensive inquiry launched, into how well the 1967 Act is implemented even in its own terms and even before we have seen the abuses that result from it?
  To sum up, I put these questions to the Minister. How can he equate the use of injections to kill a child with a statement that doctors would not abort where they thought that there was a possibility of a child being born alive? Will he consider outlawing the D and E operation altogether? Will he re-examine the requirements for permission for anaesthetics for young girls under 16? In what circumstances is a child declared a non-person when it has existed? We know that the Carlisle case caused horror, but there are probably other cases where children are born and live for only a very brief time. Are they also regarded as non-live births? Will he investigate the financial regulation of private abortion clinics and consider issuing advice on the interpretation of "substantial risk"? Will he overhaul the policing of the Abortion Act 1967 and will he consider the case for comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, reform?
  6.4 am
  Ms. Jo Richardson: Hon. Members have heard, as I rather suspected that we would, three highly contentious speeches in yet another debate designed to undermine the Abortion Act 1967. As usual, the speeches have been laced with many smears and much lurid language. I remind the House that there have been 14 Commons attempts by anti-abortion people to try to change the Abortion Act 1967, and two Lords Bills on the subject. All 16 attempts were introduced over the past 20 years. I have not been involved in all of them, but I have been involved in a good many—I am not an unfeeling person, contrary to what some hon. Members might think—and I have watched carefully and I have heard the same arguments, and I am not at all convinced that there is any need to do more than improve the Abortion Act 1967 by going a little further.

  1383
  I have added up the time that has been spent over the past few years on debating abortion Bills and private Members' Bills and added on the time spent on private Members' motions about private Members' Bills on abortion, and ten-minute Bills and Adjournment debates. Parliament has spent more than 350 hours on the issue. Those 350 hours could have been more practically spent.
  Attacks on the Act have been mounted from every quarter. The three hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have referred to a number of Bills that have been proposed during this Session. If my memory is correct, six Bills—they will not get anywhere now—have been put forward by Conservative Members. Over the years, particularly in the past two years, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, there has been a concentration on this issue. Not a trick or an opportunity has been missed by those who, if they were honest with the House and with the public, would like to see abortion outlawed altogether.
  Miss Widdecombe: I have never denied it.
  Ms. Richardson: I am glad to hear the hon. Lady say that. She does not deny it.
  Miss Widdecombe: I have never denied it.
  Ms. Richardson: I know that she has never denied it, but several people in her camp say that they are not against abortion in certain circumstances. I applaud the hon. Lady for being honest enough to say out loud, albeit from a sedentary position——
  Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to rise and say that I have never denied it.
  Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady has stood up to say that she is anti-abortion. When hon. Members read the debate, they should take note of that.
  While all those attempts have been going on, I have been at pains to point out to the House that public opinion has been going in a counter direction. The 1988 Marplan poll asked a sample of 1,552 people in 103 constituents
  "Do you think that women should have the right to choose an abortion in the first few months of pregnancy?"
  Eighty per cent. of the women and men who were polled agreed that they should. Eighty one per cent. of women were in favour. When the sample was analysed, it was found that 86 per cent. of those who said that they were Church of England were in favour, and, surprisingly, 67 per cent. of Roman Catholics were also in favour. The fifth report on British social attitudes in 1988 showed that 54 per cent. of men and 54 per cent. of women supported the idea that only the woman should decide whether to have a child.
  Although no one likes the idea of abortion—contrary to what has been said here this morning—the sample shows that a substantial majority of the population believes that it is the woman who is important. I have been quite taken back during the debate by the lack of reference to the women who have to make agonising decisions and who do not like having an abortion, but who have one for various reasons which are personal to them, either medical or social. When we say "social", we mean things that are connected with their personal lives and their families. The public obviously recognise that those women are the ones who are important and who should make the choice.
  A relatively small group of hon. Members, who are against abortion, have been trying to convince the House
  1384
  that women should have no say at all, and that public opinion should be treated with contempt, in favour of their narrow and, in my opinion, cruel, moral judgment. So far, thank goodness, they have been unsuccessful.
  The hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Maidstone have both asked the Minister directly—I, too, will be interested in his reply—whether the forthcoming Bill on embryo research and other matters that appeared in the Warnock report will contain some opportunity for the House to make a decision on abortion. My personal view is that I hope very much that that Bill will not contain any reference to abortion. As I understand it, the Government are proposing to give the House an option of voting for or against pre-embryo research, which is probably the right way to deal with it. However, to mix the whole argument up with abortion would be wrong and would, in fact, obscure many of the other parts of Warnock that need to be fully explored and fully debated. I hope that the Minister will resist any blandishments to include a clause on abortion.
  The hon. Member for Basildon really went over the top when he talked about the millions that are being made, as he alleges, out of abortion clinics. I do not know very much about the commercial sector, but I know quite a lot about the charitable sector. I am a trustee of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, and I have seen or heard nothing of which I could be ashamed. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come along to see for himself. If he is talking about the commercial sector, which existed long before the 1967 Act came in, that is a different matter, and one which he must take up with the Minister and on which the Department of Health must decide. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm, however, that everything is all right in the charitable sector.
  I shall give as an example some figures that I obtained only this afternoon, when I knew that I would be participating in the debate, and which I have had confirmed by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which is one of the biggest charitable organisations. The BPAS carries out one third of all the National Health Service abortions. Sixty eight per cent. of BPAS's total income is spent on fees and salaries, and 77 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure on abortion is spent on fees and salaries. The BPAS is not, therefore, paying out lavish money.
  The average cost of a BPAS abortion, at 1989 prices, is less than £190, including overheads. The cost of a National Health Service abortion, at 1988 prices, is £190, excluding overheads. The BPAS cannot, therefore, be charging exorbitant fees. National Heath Service hospitals using BPAS services are, therefore, not wasting public money but saving it.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Basildon and other Conservative Members would stop making allegations about the charitable sector. I do not deny that it pays wages, because people must be paid for their work and expertise. However, they are not millionaires and they are not trying to make profits in the dreadful way that the hon. Member for Basildon suggested. All BPAS counsellors and general practitioners are paid on a sessional basis. They therefore see however many patients turn up at a session, which includes contraception, infertility advice, pregnancy testing, and counselling on matters other than abortion, as well as abortion counselling and referral.
  The consultant who performs the operation has no link with patients until they visit the clinic. There are therefore

  1385
  no incentives, links or profiteering. There is no Department of Health information to uphold claims of abuse of misuse. If claims of abuse or misuse had been made, the Department would have withdrawn the rights of the pregnancy advisory service or the BPAS to act.
  Several references were made to the Carlisle baby. Of course everyone was shocked by what they heard, but I was shocked by the lack of concern shown throughout the saga for the mother. Much as been said of the baby, who was allegedly born alive and who breathed for a while before dying, which we regret. I also have feelings for the mother, who had her name, medical records and life history dragged through the courts, but for what? Why should she have been so castigated? Why should she have had to open up her life in that way?
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: The mother took the case to court.
  Ms. Richardson: She took the case to court after a priest broke a confidence.
  Mr. Hargreaves: No.
  Ms. Richardson: Yes. Her personal life and medical records were dragged through the public domain.
  I wish that Conservative Members, in their concern for premature babies—we are all concerned about premature babies—would think of the mother and the father.
  Miss Widdecombe: We do.
  Ms. Richardson: If Conservative Members do, they certainly do not mention it. Time and again, Conservative Members drag up the case of the Carlisle baby, but it will not further influence the public.
  I know that the Minister wants to ask all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Maidstone, so I shall make one or two final points. The anti-abortion Lobby fails to face up to the fact that the Abortion Act 1967 was woman-centred legislation. It was enacted because before that women felt forced to go to back streets for abortions.
  The force of the Abortion Act 1967 was to protect and support women. There is nothing wrong with that. We should now take it a step further and introduce earlier abortions for women who want them. At present they are alowed only in exceptional circumstances. Early abortions will be possible only if we amend the legislation to provide for self-referral up to 12 or 14 weeks.
  We must ensure that NHS facilities are evenly spread throughout the country. Incidentally, that would deal with the arguments about the charitable sector. Women in the west midlands—an area which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, represent—have much more difficulty in getting an abortion than women in the north-east or south-west. Wealthy women always have and always will be able to get an abortion, even if the anti-abortionists succeed in repealing the Act, which I hope they do not, but ordinary women face great difficulties.
  We are moving into the 1990s. Women are being exhorted to train for new technologies, to plan their lives, to enter new industries and fill the gaps in the employment market. How can they do that if restrictions on abortions make it even more difficult for them to plan their family properly? Family planning is being cut. I hope that Conservative Members do not approve of that. I certainly
  1386
  do not. How can women control their bodies if this male-dominated House makes it more difficult for them to plan their lives and keep their family happy?
  Only this evening I was talking to a member of staff who told me that when many years ago a local friend of her mother's who had 13 children became pregnant for the 14th time and when she tried to abort the child herself, she died. I do not want those days to return. I want women to be confident that they are not being patronised and that the legislation supports and gives them as much information and as many facilities as possible, and then allows them to make choices about their life, family, partners and children. That is the way to approach this thorny subject. None of us likes abortions or wants people who do not want them to have one. We should improve the 1967 Act to give women the choice.
  6.25 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his success in the ballot and on introducing yet another debate on this extremely important subject. I also pay tribute to the eloquent contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and to the contribution by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
  These are important issues and, from my point of view, any hour of the day or night is appropriate to debate them. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked a number of questions. Although I shall, in the time available to me, answer as many as I can, I hope that she will permit me to write to her in due course so that I may answer them more carefully and comprehensively.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon drew attention to those who were present in the Chamber at this early hour, and he was charitable in referring to me, for which I thank him, and to others, including the Whip who was on the Bench at the time. It should be noted that one of the new members of the Whips' Office is now on duty. We congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on his appointment and hope to welcome him to many more debates at these early hours.
  On the Order Paper earlier in the day was a motion to wish the Serjeant at Arms well for the future. I am sure that hon. Members who are present now and were not in their places earlier will wish to be associated with those good wishes. It must be unusual for a distinguished servant of the House to be thanked and then to have to remain in the Chamber for the succeeding 24 hours. In regard to this debate he and I perform the same duties. We are servants of the House. My job as Minister is to make sure that the Act with which we are concerned is administered properly and to provide information and statistics to the House, but not to make moral judgments or take any initiative in relation to an extension or contraction of the Act. Therefore, I see my role as being to answer questions of fact and to assist in the deliberations of the House.
  This subject has featured often in our deliberations. The hon. Member for Barking said that in the present Session, for example, the House had debated on 16 December a motion on the rights of the unborn child, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), and that six private Members' Bills on abortion-related subjects have been introduced, including the Abortion

  1387
  (Amendment) Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. There have been two Adjournment debates, one introduced by my hon. Friend who initiated tonight's debate, on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and the other on 8 June on the Carlisle baby case initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. In addition, 112 parliamentary questions on abortion topics have been addressed either to the Department of Health or to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, for which I have ministerial responsibility.
  There has been reference tonight to the prospect of legislation on the issues dealt with in the Warnock report which the Government have said will be introduced during the lifetime of this Parliament. There has been considerable media speculation in recent weeks about its content and timing. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot go beyond restating that commitment to bring forward a Bill.
  It would not be right for me to comment on the contents of the legislation and in particular on whether, as some hon. Members have suggested, it should contain provisions about abortion. I shall, as I have done in the past, draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the comments that have been made.
  In 1967 Parliament was given the opportunity in a private Member's Bill to build on an existing framework of criminal law which prevented abortions except in a very restrictive set of circumstances. Parliament agreed to do so on a free vote. It is, of course, open to Parliament to alter that framework. I realise that many hon. Members feel sincerely that the law needs radical adjustment. It is against that wide divergence of views that the Government must operate. We also have the views of the Select Committee in another place, which has suggested a framework for amending the abortion law. Clearly, the Government must take account of all those factors, and of what has been said in this debate, in looking at the legislative position. That we shall carefully do.
  This debate focuses mainly on the administration of the Abortion Act 1967. As the House knows, my Department takes seriously its task of monitoring the operation of the Act, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill and was passed by both Houses on the basis of a free vote. The Act allows abortion where two doctors certify in good faith the the risk to the life, or injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman or the existing children of her family would be greater if the pregnancy continued than if it were terminated.
  As Parliament has decided that abortions may lawfully be carried out in the circumstances set out in the Act, the Government, like their predecessors, consider that facilities for abortion treatment should be available. The Government also have a duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly applied until and unless Parliament chooses to change that law.
  Within the National Health Service the level of gynaecological provision, including abortion, is, like any other provision, decided by individual health authorities. The Government believe that such decisions are best taken locally in the light of authorities' first-hand knowledge of local needs and priorities and competing claims on resources. The private sector adds to the range of options available offering flexibility to both patients and health authorities. It is for health authorities to decide the extent
  1388
  of any arrangements made for treating NHS patients in the private sector. In 1988 some 9,000 abortions were performed under such arrangements.
  The operation of the Act is monitored closely by my Department, through its control of the private abortion sector and the investigation of specific complaints. All operating medical practitioners are required to notify the chief medical officer of each abortion that they perform. The notification form contains many details, including the grounds for abortion, the estimated gestation and the method of operation. Those forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law.
  It might be helpful to my hon. Friends and to the House if I were to say something at this point about the way in which the operation of the Abortion Act is monitored in the private sector. Before we approve a clinic or private hospital for the termination of pregnancy under section 1(3) of the 1967 Act, the premises and facilities are inspected by the Department's medical and nursing officers, and persons connected with the application are interviewed by investigating officers. An important element in the process of approval, and subsequent monitoring, is the system of "assurances"—instituted in the early 1970s after some abuse of the original arrangements had become apparent. The assurances are specific undertakings which proprietors of "approved places" are required to give to the Secretary of State on the conduct of their premises and the facilities available. In effect, the assurances form a set of conditions on which initial approval depends and contravention of which could lead to the withdrawal of approval, thus preventing any more abortions from being carried out at that place unless approval is reinstated.
  All private sector nursing homes, clinics and private hospitals approved under the Abortion Act are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the Department's medical, nursing and investigative officers. A thorough check of business and administrative arrangements is made and patients' notes and medical records are examined. Any irregularities are followed up and the appropriate action taken to obtain future compliance by the proprietors. In an extreme case this could involve the withdrawal of the Secretary of State's approval or, where there is evidence that a criminal offence may have been committed, a reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The machinery that I have described does not reveal any abuse of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked me to comment specifically on that.
  The Carlisle baby case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. This case was the subject of the Adjournment debate on 8 June during which I addressed as fully as possible, and as far as the requirements of confidentiality and possible legal action allowed, the issues that gave rise to the concerns expressed by hon. Members. My hon. Friend asks again why no attempt was made to resuscitate the baby. As I told the House on 8 June, the doctor concerned made a clinical judgment that this was not a live birth.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Minister says that the doctor decided that it was not a live birth. The question that I asked in this debate was how can one accept, when a child has been breathing without the aid of artificial equipment,

  1389
  has a pulse rate and has survived for three hours, that that was not a live birth? Under what circumstances do we call a person an unperson?
  Mr. Freeman: I am about to deal with that point. The decision was properly, and entirely, for the doctor, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. It was a clinical judgment. I shall deal shortly with the circumstances surrounding it. If he had decided that resuscitation should have been attempted, the appropriate action would have been taken.
  How doctors decide whether a baby has been born alive is a question that should be asked of obstetricians and paediatricians. My understanding is that a doctor's main criterion of a live birth before 28 weeks of pregnancy is that, when born, the baby starts to breathe properly. In these circumstances a heartbeat will, of course, be present, but a beating heart on its own would not be regarded as sufficient to label the delivery a live birth since delivered foetuses of 16 weeks or even less may have beating hearts although they have no prospect whatever of surviving. I am making no moral or ethical judgment.
  Deciding that a live birth has occurred is only one step towards reaching a decision on the appropriate subsequent management. Very few live born babies of less than 28 weeks continue to survive without a great deal of intensive care. Even if they do survive, there is a significantly increased risk of their developing substantial handicaps. The doctor responsible for the care of the mother and the baby has to weigh all the relevant considerations and use his or her knowledge and clinical judgment to decide what action is appropriate and in the best interests of the mother and baby in the circumstances of each case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked me how a doctor could avoid the possibility of a live birth through the application of medical techniques or injections. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon asked how doctors can use techniques such as dilation and evacuation. I am making no moral judgment, but these are matters for clinical judgment. It is not right for the Minister or any politician to make judgments about what are essentially clinical matters. I appreciate that my hon. Friends have strong views on this subject. All of us have strong views, but these are matters for clinical judgment.
  The conscience clause has been mentioned. Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 provides that
  "no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection".
  Under a longstanding agreement with the medical profession, no reference to termination duties should be included in the advertisement of hospital posts, but it should be included in the job description made available personally to all applicants. This procedure ensures that all practitioners, including those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to undertake such duties, are made aware of
  1390
  the requirements of the post before interview. National guidance about this was sent to regional health authorities in 1975 and 1979 by the former chief medical officer. In view of a recent error on the part of Trent regional health authority over the wording of an advertisement for a consultant post in obstetrics and gynaecology, the chief medical officer will remind regional medical officers of the existing guidance.
  For non-medical staff, in a recent ruling in the House of Lords—R v. Salford health authority—Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that, in its ordinary and neutral meaning, the word "participate" in section 4 of the Abortion Act referred to taking part in treatment.
  I am of course aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn and for Basildon have introduced Bills proposing amendments to the conscience clause. They fall to be considered by the House in accordance with the procedures governing private Members' legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn spoke eloquently about the difficulties experienced by hospital staff who have a religious or ethical objection to abortion. Everyone can sympathise with someone who experiences pressure to take part in a form of treatment to which he has a conscientious objection. Any such pressures could take a number of forms, but it is very difficult, if not impossible—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree—to legislate to encourage the development of appropriate attitudes. What is clear is that the law explicitly protects those who have conscientious objections to taking part in abortion treatment. The law is crystal clear on this subject, and we expect both the letter and the spirit to he observed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Barking will join me in that.
  Let me conclude by dealing with the issue of financial links. Since the passing of the Abortion Act 1967, several attempts have been made to introduce legislation relating to the links between doctors and agencies who refer women for termination of pregnancy and the institutions in which they are performed. These have led to the existing requirements that all nursing homes must notify the Secretary of State of any financial arrangements between the nursing home and any medical practitioner, pregnancy advice bureau or referral agency, and must report any changes in existing financial arrangements. Furthermore, all pregnancy advice bureaux referring women for abortion at places approved under the Act must identify financial links with other businesses, and doctors must not operate on patients whom they see at a referral agency.
  Those requirements are drawn to the attention of administrators of premises when the first visit of inspection is made. Checks continue to be made on subsequent visits, and company searches are carried out as necessary. Proprietors and administrators are well aware that failure to comply with an assurance could constitute grounds for withdrawal of registration of bureaux or approval of nursing homes.
  I hope that this has been a useful debate, and that it has increased understanding of a very important issue.

  BAT Group (Bid)
  6.41 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I wish to speak on the unwelcome bid by Hoylake Investments for BAT Industries. Before I begin, let me stress that I have no vested interest in either BAT Industries or the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am not a member and to which I shall probably refer.
  At £13 billion, this is the biggest takeover bid ever seen in this country—and among the biggest anywhere in the world. Outside the utilities and the oil industry, BAT is Britain's largest industrial company. Many of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members are employed by it. It contributes much to our local economies. British companies in the group include Argos, Wiggins Teape, Eagle Star, Allied Dunbar and British American Tobacco. It is acknowledged to be a world-class business with a leadership position in many key markets. Worldwide it employs more than 300,000 people in 19 countries; in the United Kingdom it employs 32,000 in about 250 constituencies. BAT has invested £668 million in fixed assets in the United Kingdom over the past eight years.
  I believe that Hoylake is a consortium specially formed for the purpose of taking over BAT Industries. It consists of Sir James Goldsmith, Jacob Rothschild and Kerry Packer—the Australian gentleman in the stocking mask. There are some minor players as well, including GEC, Agnelli and some foreign banks intended to provide credibility.
  Goldsmith is known for many aspects of his life. Among his sayings is, "Takeovers may be interpreted by some corporate raiders as being for the public good, but that is not why I do it. I do it to make money."
  The idea is that instead of offering £13 billion in cash, which it does not have, the company should borrow more than £12 billion, pay off the loan by selling components of the company and then be left with the tobacco company for nothing. That would be highly damaging to the strength and success of such companies as Argos, the catalogue retailer, which operates in my constituency.
  At the end of last year Argos had more than 220 stores nationwide. It is one of the biggest employers in the retail sector, with about 10,000 employees. It has in Castleford a distribution centre which was opened in 1984 with an initial work force of 52. In June this year, its work force on the site was 270 permanent staff and it provides temporary employment for a further 200 people at seasonal peaks.
  The total investment by Argos in its Castleford distribution centre is £9·4 million. It plans to continue its investment, not only in that region but in the north in general and has plans to extend the number of Argos outlets to more than 600. The House will see that we are hopeful about the further increase in the number of jobs that Argos will provide in hard-hit areas, such as my constituency, with limited employment opportunities.
  The House will be aware that I have frequently spoken about the problems that my constituents face as a result of the rundown of the mining industry. We have suffered severely and are still suffering, and it appears from the intention of British Coal to reduce in this financial year the
  1392
  number employed in the industry by 20,000 men, that those problems will continue. My constituency cannot afford to lose any more jobs.
  Castleford may not be the first place that hon. Members would think of for a model of the fictional Gotham city, but we share with that city the belief that BATman has been good for us. We do not want any jokers or penguins to come along and spoil it. That would happen if the bid is allowed to go through, because many specific benefits result from BAT's ownership of Argos. It has access to expertise and technologies within the BAT group in areas such as information systems and training development. With BAT Industries behind it, Argos was able more easily to buy leases in places where it was not regarded as a prime tenant. That credibility gives a certain access to high-profile brands. Argos's ownership removes cash restraints enabling more rapid expansion and reinvestment than could be achieved independently or under new ownership concerned with paying back the purchase price before reinvesting. Under BAT Industries, Argos can continue to engage in long-term planning rather than having to concentrate on short-term gains.
  As well as its contribution to Castleford, Argos brings much to the national economy in four main areas—jobs, investment, orders and shopping. The number of people employed by Argos alone averages 10,000 and rises to 16,500 to cope with seasonal demands. It is planning a £200 million expansion programme to treble its number of outlets and in 1989 it spent £25 million on shop fitting. It also plays a part in developing retail technology. Most goods are bought from British firms or United Kingdom subsidiaries of overseas firms. Approximately 40 per cent. of goods sold by it are made in the United Kingdom, allowing suppliers to invest in new technology, capacity and personnel.
  The expansion of Argos is helped by its being part of BAT Industries and that has increased consumer choice for 45 million customers and increased retail competition. Significant investment in quality control and production safety ensures the supply of safe products.
  I have put the Argos case as I know it and as I have had it explained to me. The Hoylake bid is bad because it is uncertain that a future owner of Argos would sustain the company's excellent progress and allow it to continue to generate record profits, expand and create even more jobs. The benefits gained from being part of BAT Industries would be lost, and there is no certainty that the new owners would provide the existing level of commitment to the growth of Argos. Highly leveraged bids put constranits on a company to produce short-term profits, often to the detriment of long-term growth. Without investment, it becomes harder for a company to compete in the market place or to develop new retail opportunities, which leads to reduced consumer choice and less retail competition.
  I am no financier, but one does not have to be a big-shot financier to see that such backing and investment will not be available if the Hoylake bid succeeds. If it is successful, BAT will be financed not by shareholders' funds, but by what are called junk bonds. These are unsecured IOUs that offer much higher interest rates in return for accepting much higher risks. They were invented and developed in the United States, where investors were persuaded that the higher returns—often 3 or 4 per cent. higher—compensate for lack of security.
  More than two thirds of the money raised in junk bonds was to be used to finance leveraged bonds. The term

  1393
  leverage refers to the debt level necessary for raising funds. The bonds were originally intended to allow managements to buy their companies from divesting owners, but the leverage technique is increasingly being used to allow predators to acquire huge corporate assets on borrowed money.
  Such acquisitions depend on substituting debt for equity. The acquirers buy the organisation, using junk bond funding to pay off the original shareholders. The junk bond holders require their high level of interest, and the bonds are due to be repaid in full at the end of the agreed term. In this way, the company's gearing or ratio of debt to equity is raised significantly. Servicing the debt becomes the paramount corporate objective, to the exclusion of longer-term concerns. Investment, research and development, training, employment and capital expenditure—all are subordinated to the need to bring in as much cash as possible.
  Time, talent and resources are devoted to the short-term aim of squeezing assets to the limit so as to produce enough profits to meet the high interest charges. If sufficient profits are not forthcoming, assets have to be sold to cover the payments. All notions of corporate responsibility and investment for the long term frequently disappear. Average gearing rates would rise from 15 per cent. to more than 50 per cent., making companies more vulnerable in an economic downturn.
  The United Kingdom has so far escaped the effects of large-scale leveraged buy-outs. The Hoylake bid for BAT Industries, involving a 14:1 debt equity ratio is greater by a factor of 15 than anything seen before in Europe. If it is successful, it will lead to the breaking up of a major British company and old-fashioned asset stripping on a scale never seen before. It will be the sale of the century of major British businesses with considerable worldwide interests operating on a global scale.
  BAT does a good job for us in the United States. It is one of the largest United Kingdom companies in America, having built a business over the past 60 years worth$7 billion—from a $50,000 investment and all from retained earnings. The work of six decades would be gone within months. The new owners of these businesses will have to borrow money to buy them, and then they, too, will need to service debts before they are able to invest in capital equipment, staff training and development and research and development. The bid has important implications also for British industry as a whole and for companies in every constituency. It could open the floodgate for similar bids in Britain on the same scale as that which has been experienced in America, where about 10 per cent. of the capital value of publicly owned quoted companies has disappeared. The so-called retirement of equity could lead to the early retirement of many British workers.
  Research that has been conducted on the United Kingdom plc computer model of the stockbrokers Hoare Govett suggests that half of the top-ranking alpha securities on the London stock exchange could be threatened. It is forecast that 32 major British companies could be subject to a leveraged takeover by 1993.
  I do not know what the implications of that would be for the economy. I do not know what would ensue if large firms were to disappear from the stock market as a result of being asset stripped, but I do know what it would mean
  1394
  for leading employers in my constituency. I can guess that it would be bound to have a serious consequence for London's position as a leading global stock market. There could be repercussions for pension funds and other investing institutions. Where are pension funds, including my union, going to invest their money if major blue-chip equities have gone to the financiers' knackers yard? If junk bonds are raised abroad, will the interest add still further to the balance of payments deficit? What will be the loss of remitted overseas earnings?
  I do not know the answer to many of these questions. I suspect that many hon. Members pretend to know them but in reality do not have the foggiest idea either. I believe, however, that these matters are of fundamental importance to British business, to jobs and the economy as a whole.
  Enough basic questions about the long-term effects on the capital structure of the corporate sector and the effect on growth and further jobs have been raised for us to commission a major inquiry of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to allow us to determine what fears are justified.
  I have mentioned the interest of the Transport and General Workers Union, which has set out its case to me by letter. It has supported the opposition to the bid. I shall quote two paragraphs from its letter of 19 July, which was sent to me by Mr. Peter Smith, a district secretary. He wrote:
  "The bidding group has openly announced that if the bid is successful they will dissect and asset strip all divisions other than tobacco, hence the fear and apprehension of the TGWU members involved (over 150 persons). It seems that the takeover bid will consider nothing other than the thirst to make a quick profit with scant regard for employees and their families.
  I would personally wish to point out that the TGWU has developed an excellent working relationship and has found the company neither remote nor insensitive to the desires and aspirations of their employees."
  That is a reference to Argos. The letter continues:
  "Indeed, over a 3–4 year period, the Union has made real improvements both financially and socially in terms and conditions of employment.
  The Castleford Depot alone has in a relatively short period of time expanded and doubled the number of employees. Nationally the picture is reflected with new distribution centres at Welwyn Garden City and Bridgwater."
  With all that in mind, I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support my request to the Government to refer the bid to the commission before it is too late. By the time that the House returns from the recess in the autumn, BATman may have gone and the joker could be moving in on the major employers in the constituencies of a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I ask the Minister to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  6.59 am
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who is to make his maiden ministerial speech in this debate. Among the prophets of modern free enterprise capitalism, my hon. Friend has an honoured role to play. I count him second only to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this House, and only just behind Sir James Goldsmith, as the person who has most popularised the concept of free enterprise in its modern form, which has done so much to transform the British economy.

  1395
  I congratulate also the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on his success in securing the debate, even at this hour. The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently of his constituency interests and of his fears for the jobs of his constituents. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him.
  I begin my speech, as did the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, by declaring that I have no financial interest of any kind in any of the companies that are the subject of the bid or involved in making it. I stand to gain in no sense, except that we all stand to gain from companies being well run and the jobs of their employees being made more secure as a consequence. In that sense, the country as a whole benefits.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford is entitled to express his concern, but he speaks before the full facts are disclosed and analysed. Neither the offer document nor BAT's response has yet been published. Together, they should provide the detailed information on which we can all base our opinions. It is appropriate to wait until their publication in August before rushing to premature judgment. Otherwise, the debate will be based on popular emotion and bias rather than objective views.
  The burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was the possibility that the demerger of a conglomerate such as BAT could create unemployment. I draw attention to the irony of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford rushing to the defence of a multinational conglomerate based on tobacco products, when such a company normally occupies a secure place in the Labour party's chamber of horrors of international capitalism. Nevertheless, I gather that the hon. Gentleman considers that BAT is an exception to the rule.
  It has not been suggested that transferring the ownership of BAT's various subsidiaries would result in any closures. Certainly that is not the intention of the prospective bidders. The facts disclosed in due course will prove or disprove the suggestion that companies within BAT are poorly run—which is the case made by Sir James Goldsmith and his partners.
  BAT is a disparate group of companies engaged in totally unconnected activities, ranging from tobacco and insurance companies to department stores and papermaking. The essence of the bidder's case is that the companies are underperforming and that their performance would be greatly enhanced by restoring their independence or joining them with others that can offer the appropriate and different skills needed in each of the industries concerned.
  The demerger is aimed at making the subsidiaries much more secure and at protecting the jobs of those who work in them. The companies' prosperity would be enhanced, so their productivity and number of employees would increase. There would be increased investment in research and capital equipment, leading to higher profitability. If the case is made for all that, the suggestion that jobs are in jeopardy would be proved false. The opposite would be the case. Hoylake is, in a sense, trying to privatise within the private sector.
  The objective is to liberate those subsidiaries from the control of the conglomerate. If there is a demerger it will be possible for those who run the companies locally to participate in management buy-outs and for the employees to acquire a real share in the enterprises in which they work. One of the beneficent aspects of the Government's
  1396
  period of office is that we have made it possible, not only within the public sector but within the private sector, for the benefits of capitalism to trickle down in that way.
  BAT is often described as being a major British industrial company. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford made it clear that it is not a British industrial company in anything other than a very minor way. Its industrial activities in the United Kingdom account for only 9 per cent. of its assets and 8 per cent. of its profits. It is basically a holding company of foreign subsidiaries. Most of its industrial activities are overseas.
  Therefore, the restructuring of BAT would result in a major return to this country of capital previously invested overseas which, when repaid to shareholders, would contribute to the continued industrial development of the United Kingdom. There is a great opportunity here for the repatriation of capital to Britain, something which I thought that the Labour party was in favour of.
  It has been stated that the offer being made for BAT would result in the creation of an ongoing highly geared or heavily borrowed company, weighed down by debt to such a degree that it could render its future fragile.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke with some feeling about the way in which the offer will be financed, saying that it would be financed by junk bonds. There is a significant difference between the proposal for financing this bid and junk bond-based bids. What is proposed here is not the issue of a bond to be financed out of future speculative profits, which is what a true junk bond is, but a bond which is to be financed by demergers and selling off the assets which are presently underperforming and so are undervalued.
  The figures that are available for anybody to see in published reports show that if Hoylake succeeds in its bid it will not create a highly geared or heavily borrowed company. In fact, it will be a less highly geared or heavily borrowed company than BAT is at the moment. The debt that will be incurred will be repaid within a year from the proceeds of the announced disposal of those businesses that have nothing whatever to do with the traditional core business of BAT.
  It can be seen from the reports available from City analysts that the resultant company would be classically financed, with substantial capital and a normal level of ongoing debt. Claims that a highly indebted and therefore endangered company would result from the transaction are false and seem designed to appeal to emotion rather than to reason.
  Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed offer for BAT, there can clearly be no element of restraint of competition. Therefore, there is no case for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That view seems to be shared by almost every commentator in all the quality newspapers with one exception.
  Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that only this week the CBI recommended that the bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  Mr. Hamilton: That may be a point in my favour in view of the CBI's history in recent years.
  If the hon. Gentleman has been reading the Library's newspaper cuttings on the bid he will know that the overwhelming majority of financial and economic commentators have come to the conclusion that there is no case on the basis of competition, which is the basis of the Government's policy for references, for a reference to the

  1397
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Newspapers as diverse as the Financial Times, the Evening Standard and The Sunday Times have agreed that the bid is not an appropriate case for referral. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with that.
  My last point relates to the insurance companies that BAT owns, which are different from its industrial and trading companies because there is the question of trusteeship. It is natural, therefore, that some concerns should have been voiced in respect of those subsidiaries. The interests of the insurance companies' policyholders will be unaffected. The bidding company, Hoylake, is committed to dispose of the insurance companies, not to interfere in the management during the process of the disposal, not to increase the payments of dividends and to seek advice from the existing management in establishing the appropriate future for the companies. Hoylake has stated that it has no interest in maintaining a shareholding in the insurance companies and that there can, therefore, be no legitimate concerns about the interests of policyholders and other insurance clients.
  The nub of the case for what Hoylake seeks to do is this: the shareholders of BAT should decide whether the offer should succeed or fail. That decision should not be made by Governments or by politicians such as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford and myself, who have little locus standi in this matter. The basis of our free enterprise society is that is it shareholders, and not politicians or management, who have the right and responsibility to determine the basic issues affecting their company. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to let the market be the test of the bid. In due course the shareholders will be able to judge between the case for Hoylake and the case for BAT and we can leave the future of the company and its employees safely in their hands.
  7.2 am
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on making his maiden outing today as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I have an interest in the fact that he has been elevated so early in his life in this place because I have occasionally been mistaken for him. Perhaps I shall continue to bathe in the reflected glory of his meteoric advance.
  I thank the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for affording us the opportunity to debate this important matter. I understand the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of his constituents. I hope that we can reassure him that his constituents stand to gain, rather than lose, from the proposals on the table. I, too, find it amusing to see the hon. Gentleman leaping to the defence of an international conglomerate which has, as he said, invested heavily in the United States. Perhaps, after he has heard all the arguments he might join us; then we should see the repatriation of funds to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Lofthouse: My main concern is jobs in my constituency.
  Mr. Howarth: I have never doubted the hon. Gentleman's purpose in bringing the matter before the House, and I am sure that his constituents will be very grateful.
  A number of major British companies might look askance at the claims being made by BAT for its ranking in the league table. British Aerospace, which I know reasonably well, has an enormous number of employees—far more than BAT has in the United Kingdom.
  I have no financial or constituency interest in the matter. My only interest is that I regard myself as a friend of Sir James Goldsmith, who has made a significant contribution to the industrial and commercial world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton mentioned the acquisition by BAT last year of the Farmers insurance company in the United States. It was a hard-fought takeover battle, as they often are. During that struggle, Farmers attempted to establish that BAT was not fit and proper to own a United States insurance company. Much of that argument concerned the potential conflict of interest between selling tobacco on the one hand and providing health insurance on the other. In a number of states, the insurance commissioners decided that BAT was not fit and proper. Then, BAT added a very large sum to the price that it was offering for Farmers, and Farmers' management accepted the higher offer. Almost immediately, the insurance commissioners reversed their original verdict thereby demonstrating the ability of management, if it so desires, to convince insurance commissioners. That is important, because BAT is seeking to use the United States insurance commissioners as a means to thwart the offer by Hoylake.
  This is how it works: in the United Kingdom, the Takeover Panel, which regulates all takeover offers, has set a timetable that governs all such transactions. That timetable determines that the maximum time normally available between the initial offer and the end of the offer is 60 days. If a method can be found to make it impossible for an offer to be completed within the 60 days, the offer will lapse and will not be renewable for 12 months. Therefore, shareholders would have been denied their right to vote.
  It seems to many people that that is the purpose of BAT's strategy in using the United States insurance commissioners to delay their approval by more than 60 days. For their part, the United States insurance commissioners have a wholly legitimate responsibility to assess Hoylake, should Hoylake intend to own Farmers or to run it for an interim period. To satisfy the commissioners, Hoylake made it clear that it would form a special trusteeship which would hold the interests in Farmers.
  The trustees, who would be leading figures from the insurance industry unconnected with Hoylake, would control Farmers. Their task would be to identify a buyer suitable to the United States regulatory authorities to be responsible for the management of the company during the interim and to distribute dividends no higher than the historic pattern established by Farmers as an independent company.
  Despite those assurances, BAT's management has attempted to provoke the insurance commissioners to initiate a process that would take more than the 60 days permissible by the United Kingdom Takeover Panel. It is important that the BAT management should fight the matter on its merits and put it to the vote of the

  1399
  shareholders. It should not seek to use what many—certainly I—would regard as an underhand tactic simply to frustrate the due process established by Parliament in the United Kingdom to allow shareholders to reach their verdict. That is an unsavoury aspect of this takeover battle. I accept that all takeovers are a hard and cut-and-thrust business.
  As I was leaving the House in the middle of the night, I saw a report on the news tapes that BAT has employed the services of a firm of private detectives called Kroll International. Presumably that has been done at the expense of BAT shareholders. Why have private detectives been employed? Are they to be sent round to bug Sir James Goldsmith, Mr. Packer or Mr. Rothschild? Will they put devices in their cars? That sounds like the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) might write about.
  I understand that Kroll uses the consultancy services of a British journalist called Michael Gillard who works on The Observer and is responsible for the "City Slicker" column in Private Eye—which some of us have known rather more intimately.
  In 1979, Mr. Gillard brought an action against Sir James Goldsmith, the chairman of Hoylake, who had described Mr. Gillard as a blackmailer. The case was held before a jury and, after a lengthy hearing of the events, the jury concluded that Sir James Goldsmith was justified in describing Mr. Gillard as a blackmailer. The jury's verdict was unanimous and the verdict was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. The case was widely reported at the time and could not have escaped public attention. I am sure that all hon. Members today will be familiar with what happened.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that while all this intrigue is going on among the high financiers, some people want nothing more than to earn an honest living and have a job to go to?
  Mr. Howarth: I am well aware of that. I am trying to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Sir James Goldsmith and Hoylake who are employing private detectives. The top management of the company that the hon. Gentleman is trying to defend have employed that international firm of private detectives.
  Last week another article appeared in the "City Slicker" column in connection with the Hoylake offer. It was distributed on behalf of BAT to the insurance commissioners to stimulate sufficient doubts in their minds to provoke a delay which might take longer than 60 days to resolve and which would thereby thwart the Hoylake hid and deny the shareholders their right to vote. One must ask oneself whether that is the proper action of a major British public company seeking to protect the national interest or whether it is designed to protect the position of the current senior management of the company.
  It will be evident to most objective people that this is not a frivolous bid but one that many serious commentators view favourably. It is not an asset-stripping exercise, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said, but a proposal to the shareholders of BAT for the better management of their assets and the improved performance of the company's constituent parts. That could be in the best interests of the company's employees and the hon. Gentleman's constituents as much as it will be for the benefit of the shareholders. It would be wrong to
  1400
  take any action to deny the shareholders the right to consider and vote on the proposal which, as has been said, is likely to be put to the shareholders early next month.
  That is real company democracy. It is not employing private detectives to put bugging devices all over the place, to seek to poison the minds of the insurance commissioners in the United States and to engage in a ploy that is simply delaying tactics to deny shareholders here the right to consider the matter. As the Financial Times concluded on 18 January, on the evidence so far available, it should be left to the shareholders to decide.
  7.21 am
  Mr. John Garrett: Like other hon. Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for raising what could become a major issue of industrial policy. Like everybody else, I have no financial interest in BAT, and certainly not in Hoylake, although there is an Argos outlet in my constituency.
  Of course, like every other speaker in the debate, I welcome the Minister's debut on this issue. It is a pity that he could not have opened to a larger house, but Opposition Members look forward to hearing the views of a prophet of the free enterprise economy. No doubt he can enlighten us on the latest thinking in the world of prophets on this important development in industrial policy.
  This case is likely to run and run, if only because of the delays that are becoming apparent from activities in the United States state courts. It is likely to become a landmark case in takeover history. Not only is the proposed £13 billion bid by Hoylake for BAT Industries the largest takeover bid that we have seen in this country, but it has clearly important implications for takeover and merger and, in this case, demerger policy. Therefore, Opposition Members would welcome the Government's preliminary thoughts on the issue. We have heard the free enterprise argument for leaving the bid without the intervention of the Government.
  As The Sunday Times quoted on 16 July, in an article headed "Takeover mania",
  "No British public company—no matter how large—is now safe from corporate raiders … we are in the grip of takeover mania."
  The size of this bid is not only a matter of public interest but marks the debut in this country of the highly leveraged buy-out, which was developed in the United States, with what most impartial observers would consider to be disastrous results. The Sunday Times article went on:
  "America's quoted sector has been ravaged by leveraged buyouts in the past few years—something similar is now expected here."
  That is why this could be a landmark case. If it proceeds, the floodgates will be opened by similar takeover devices, probably financed from the United States where there is so much more experience of this kind of thing than there is here.
  After more than 1,300 leveraged buy-outs in the United States, thousands have lost their jobs, a few have made many millions of dollars and there has been no perceptible improvement in corporate performance or efficiency. A number of studies, including one from the Brookings Institute, which have gone into the consequences of such a development in takeovers in the United States, bear out that contention.
  The leveraged buy-out, usually called junk-bond financing in the United States and mezzanine financing in

  1401
  this country—a term which I have only learnt to get my tongue around in the past few days—is really a process of financial manipulation. The process involves issuing bonds where the ratio of debt to security is very high—in other words, a very large loan is made against a rather small security. A leveraged buy-out almost invariably must be followed by a rapid break-up of the victim company, which is usually a diversified conglomerate, with a strong cash flow and undervalued assets. The predator stands to make exceptional gains from the exercise. It is anticipated that Hoylake could make £1 billion out of breaking up BAT. It has been calculated that some 44 of the FTSE 100 companies could be targets; especially vulnerable are those with strong brand names, the values of which could easily be realised in a dismemberment. I have a number of such firms in my constituency which I will not draw to Sir James Goldsmith's attention by mentioning. It is really just a sophisticated name for asset stripping and one can imagine the turmoil in some of our largest companies as a result. It is likely to stifle any rational planning and development in companies at risk.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I should like to draw a distinction between classical asset stripping and what is proposed for the BAT bid. Classically, asset stripping is when one breaks up the company and sells off the assets, so that the company no longer exists and the assets are dispersed elsewhere. In effect, what is proposed here is a series of demergers, so that the subsidiary companies remain in existence but are better run, more profitable and, therefore, the jobs are more secure.
  Mr. Garrett: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's definition, because there was plenty of classical asset stripping in the 1960s, when the companies were not entirely liquidated, but some kind of demerger activity of the kind proposed here was carried on. In the activities of Slater Walker, I believe that was more often the case. Asset stripping usually related to the realisation of real property assets, such as land and buildings. Therefore, it is fair to call this a modern version of asset stripping.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) saw last night's television programme on the career of Mr. Milliken, who is a junk bond guru in the United States, but is now under some suspicion. The hon. Member for Tatton said that there was no suggestion of loss of jobs, but on that television programme a senior executive of Goodyear—which was Sir James Goldsmith's last venture into such an activity—reported that thousands of jobs were lost from that great American industrial company, and Goodyear was lumbered with interest payments of $1 million a day, which had significantly altered the capacity for development of its business.
  The predators in such takeovers have no intrinsic interest in the victim company, other than to take a short-term profit from the disposal of its assets. They make no positive or creative contribution to the economy, as United States experience has shown. The arguments that such takeovers shake up sleepy management do not hold water. That is be generally true of takeovers. After all, the DTI's 1988 report on merger policy listed nine separate academic studies which suggested that takeovers generally actually diminish efficiency and profitability.
  1402
  In the main, the people who benefit from such an exercise are the lawyers, the bankers, brokers, accountants, public relations and advertising practices—and now, I hear, private detectives—who, and I quote The Observer of 16 July,
  "hover over the scene like vultures over a mediaeval battlefield."
  Minorco's bid for Consolidated Goldfields was a quarter the size of the Hoylake bid and generated £50 million in fees for such advisers.
  Sir James Goldsmith justified his bid by saying that BAT's companies were being stifled under the bureaucracy of a large conglomerate. He does not know whether they are being stifled or not, but the only companies likely to buy Eagle Star insurance group, Allied Dunbar, Farmers group, Argos, Wiggins Teape and other BAT subsidiaries are conglomerates. There will therefore be no diminution in bureacracy, if bureaucracy is the normal condition of a conglomerate.
  There is no evidence that the bid will benefit the economy, BAT's 320,000 workers worldwide or its 32,000 workers in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in any unbundling of BAT, many thousands of workers throughout the country may find their jobs at risk, which was the prime concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
  Another worrying issue is the bid's effect on capital markets. It could lead to our corporate finance system being awash with poor-quality bonds. The issue is not whether the bonds in this takeover are of higher quality than the junk bonds that are customary in the United States, but the principle of establishing whether such a leveraged buy-out is acceptable. One can be sure that poorer-quality bonds will follow the ones that Sir James Goldsmith and Hoylake issue. Of the bid, the Financial Times said that it was
  "financed by unquoted IOUs from an off the shelf Bermuda-based shell company."
  The Governor of the Bank of England has expressed concern that the development of the leveraged buy-out here could result in
  "a profusion of unsuccessful financial arrangements."
  The bid could introduce massive instability into the British corporate scene. Leverage of the corporate sector debt levels in relation to the capital base has risen steadily in the United States, mainly as a result of the leveraged buy-out boom, so that, at present debt levels, 10 per cent. of United States companies will be acutely vulnerable to a recession on the scale of that in the early 1980s.
  There is every sign that the BAT bid will pave the way for a flood of big leveraged deals in Britain, making our companies similarly vulnerable. The effect will be to encourage short-termism—to encourage managers to take a short-term view, cutting back on investment and research and development to deter predators, and, after takeovers, maximising cash flow to service excessive debt levels. Corporate planning in anticipation of 1992, for example, could be made extremely difficult.
  In our view, the national interest should require that the onus of proof should be reversed in major takeover bids—a point that we made in Committee debates on the Companies Bill, and which we will continue to make when the Bill returns from the other place. The bid should be shown to be in the national interest before being allowed to proceed. The Tebbit doctrine of making the criteria for

  1403
  the takeover of companies relate only to competitiveness is not enough, and it is certainly inadequate in bids such as this.
  Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, said in December 1986 that takeovers should be required to show benefit to the economy and suggested that reversal of the burden of proof applied to takeovers of a certain size would be a way of tackling the problem of financial markets taking an excessively short-term view. He said:
  "The decision to buy or sell particular shares at a particular price does not necessarily bring about the most efficient deployment of and development of the assets which these shares represent."
  We agree with Sir Gordon Borrie and the Confederation of British Industry that the bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, first, because of its size—the CBI says that one bid of this size could buy control of 25 per cent. of Britain's manufacturing exports—secondly, because of the creation of a massive amount of corporate debt and dubious instruments of finance and thirdly, because of the endangering of investment in plant and equipment and research and development in many of our large companies—the short-termism argument.
  There are many issues of public and corporate interest in this dangerous development, and in our view the Government should refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for mature and careful consideration. As I said, it could be a pacemaking event in corporate finance in this country. It has a number of extremely dangerous implications and it should be considered very carefully, first, by the Government and, secondly, by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before being allowed to proceed.
  7.34 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): We have had a good, wide-ranging debate. Although there may not have been many hon. Members present, what was lacking in quantity was certainly made up for in quality. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to his duties on the Front Bench and thank my two hon. Friends who spoke so kindly about me. I hope that all they said was meant to be praise and I take it in that spirit. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) for his remarks.
  The debate has prefigured many of the arguments that will be conducted by the participants in this matter over the next few weeks. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on his success in obtaining this debate on the takeover proposal for it raises an important subject. How will our mergers policy deal with the phenomenon of leveraged or largely debt-financed takeovers? That was the prime concern of the hon. Member for Norwich, South and was mentioned by others. I hope to be able to reassure the House that both our mergers policy and legislation are equipped to deal with such takeovers.
  The specific case of BAT is important as it is a large employer will plants and offices in many parts of the country. It is naturally apprehensive about possible change. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford put his constituents' case well. drawing attention to the importance of Argos as an employer in his constituency.
  1404
  The bid by Hoylake Investments for the BAT group comes under the duty of the director general of Fair Trading. He advises the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether particular mergers should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The director general is considering the proposed acquisition of BAT by Hoylake Investments and will consider any offer document that may emerge. There is no formal offer document that we know of yet. The Secretary of State will take his decision whether or not to refer this particular bid to the MMC in due course and in the light of the director general's advice.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will apreciate that it would not be right for me to comment in detail on this particular case, before the director general has advised the Secretary of State. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, as always, the director general and the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant aspects in the consideration of this proposed acquisition.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Fair Trading Act 1973 provides for a case-by-case scrutiny of mergers. Each merger or merger proposal which qualifies, because for example, the target company involved is larger than £30 million of assets or because the combined market share of the merged companies would exceed 25 per cent., is considered individually by the director general on its merits, in the light of all the circumstances at the time. Only if a merger is referred to the MMC, and the commission concludes that it would be against the public interest, does my right hon. Friend have powers to take action against that particular merger. Then my right hon. Friend can decide whether to block the bid or not.
  I recognise that a particular concern in this case has been registered about the proposed financing of the Hoylake Investments' proposal—involving extensive borrowing. It has been widely reported that shareholders in the target company, BAT, will be offered not cash but various forms of loan notes, some of which are not secured and which are referred to as "subordinated debt", or to use the more pejorative United States phrase, "junk bonds". If such a bid were to succeed, it seems clear that the new company would have to service a large amount of debt.
  But it is not at all clear that the financing of a takeover largely by debt—or "leveraging" as it is called—is likely to evoke a response from the market which diverges from the public interest more generally. One case in particular comes to mind where the financing of merger proposals was considered to raise public interest issues which deserved further investigation by the MMC. This was the Elders proposed takeover of Allied Lyons. In that case the MMC concluded in its report of September 1986 that the proposal would not operate against the public interest.
  It found no evidence that the developments of the Allied Lyons businesses that Elders planned to retain would be prejudiced by financial stringency brought on by high capital gearing and low interest cover. The banks providing Elders' loan facility had expressed confidence in Elders' management, and on the basis of the available information, the commission did not think that Elders would make an imprudent future bid. In the event, Elders did not rebid.
  There have, however, been other cases of leveraged bids where a reference has not been considered appropriate because the Secretary of State considered that the market was best placed to decide on the merits or otherwise of the proposal. Three cases that spring to mind are the

  1405
  Demerger Corporation's bid in 1986 for the Extel Corporation, Valuedale's bid later the same year for Simon Engineering and Barker Dobson's bid for Dee Corporation. In those cases, incidentally, the offers were unsuccessful in the market.
  I shall, in this context, quote from the Department of Trade and Industry's blue paper on mergers policy of March last year. It states:
  "The consequences of highly-leveraged bids have been a source of concern to some commentators, primarily on the grounds that such bids are often mounted on the basis of plans to break up the target company if the bid is successful. In the typical highly-leveraged case, the bidder will usually need to to sell off parts of the company he has acquired in order to meet the debt obligations he has incurred in financing the bid. Some observers see such post-merger divestment as inherently destructive, and apply the pejorative label asset-stripping to it. On the other hand, others have pointed to the possible benefits of leveraging in subjecting the incumbent managements of even the largest company to the possible threat of takeover and to its associated healthy disciplines, from which they might in practice have been immune without the growth of leveraged financing techniques."
  Those two arguments have been mentioned today. The paper continued:
  "The Government's view is one of scepticism as to whether there is normally a divergence between the interests of private decision-makers and the public interest where leverage bids are concerned. Some highly leveraged bids are rejected by shareholders: the market can and does make sensible judgments in rejecting bids where the risks of a high degree of leveraging seem too great. However, where there are profitable opportunities arising from leveraged takeovers followed by break up of the target company, the presumption must be that the profit arises from the assets concerned being put to more efficient and more profitable use than in the original target company, and that this is to the benefit of the economy as a whole. Therefore the Secretary of State will not normally regard high leveraging on its own as a ground for reference. However, he will continue to consider referring such bids when he believes that a high degree of leveraging, combined with other features of the bid, may pose dangers to the public interest."
  I have quoted from that document at length because it represents a good statement of the Government's position.
  That policy was reflected in the reference of the Goodman Fielder Wattie bid for Ranks Hovis McDougall, which was referred in August 1988 because of concern about the possible effects on competition, especially in the market for bread. In the event, Goodman Fielder Wattie withdrew its bid and the reference was laid aside.
  Concerns have also been expressed about the possible implications of this bid for the insurance industry. Of course, I cannot comment on actions that may or may not take place in the United States. But there are implications in this country, as BAT has a significant financial services group comprising Eagle Star, Allied Dunbar and Farmers.
  1406
  I reassure the House that the legal position, under section 61 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, is that anyone seeking to become a controller of an insurance company must give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry prior notice of his intention to do so, and the Secretary of State will then consider whether he is a fit and proper person.
  I should also emphasise that were this bid to be successful and were there to be any subsequent transactions resulting from it, each would be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the normal way—that is, individually, on its own merits.
  I conclude by emphasising that the main, though not exclusive, consideration in determining whether mergers should be referred to the MMC should be their potential effect on competition in the United Kingdom. The Government's policy enables the great majority of proposed mergers and acquisitions which do not pose a threat to competition to be decided by the market, in the way recommended by my hon. Friends, without intervention from official agencies. The Government believe that there are considerable benefits in allowing freedom for change in corporate ownership and control through mergers and acquisitions. Generally, the market will be a better arbiter than Government of the prospects for the proposed transactions, and will ensure better use of assets, for the benefit of their owners and the economy as a whole. The Government should intervene only where the interests of the decision makers in the market are likely to run counter to the public interest.
  The Government take the view that decisions about changes in the ownership or management of a company are generally best taken by the shareholders themselves, as the Government believe that the people best placed to make a judgment of commercial prospects are those whose money is at stake. It is not the role of the Government or statutory agencies to second guess commercial judgments. There may be a case for the public authorities to intervene in particular circumstances, typically where there are grounds for believing that the interests of private decision makers run counter to the public interest. The classic example of this divergence is where a merger confers excessive market power on the new enterprise, so that it offers the prospect of profits to the owners, but threatens to damage the public interest, for example by leading to distortion of the market and exploitation of the customer.
  The current procedures for examining qualifying mergers provide a good framework within which to investigate—if necessary by a reference to the MMC—and to control mergers raising public interest issues. The same applies to leveraged offers. Where a high leveraged offer combined with other features might pose dangers to the public interest, we will also, having received the advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading, consider making a reference to the MMC.

  A27 (Bypass)
  7.45 am
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on his appointment at the Department of Transport.
  Transport is an area with an enormous number of major political questions. The issue of the future route of the A27, together with the expansion of Worthing hospital, are the major issues confronting my constituents at present. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not elaborate on my congratulations because I stress that the time available to us is very short and I shall understand if he is not able to give a full reply. I thank my hon. Friend for sitting through the long watches of the night, as we have together, while waiting for this debate—[Interruption.] On the contrary, my hon. Friend has been here as long as I have—and I have been here all night.
  This issue has a long history. Some 10 or 12 years ago, a study was carried out—inadequately in my view—which suggested four routes for the A27, none of which was a bypass. A preferred route was announced and a lot of property was bought up. I am happy to say that subsequently I was successful in persuading the Minister to drop that idea and the route was abandoned and the houses sold off.
  Meanwhile, the traffic has been building up, and back in 1985 the Government decided that a further study should be carried out by Howard Humphries. It resulted in the recommendation of an inner route which, as the posters in my constituency make absolutely clear, is a throughpass not a bypass. I believe profoundly that Worthing should have a real bypass which avoids the town completely.
  Indeed, Government policy is that through traffic should be taken away from towns. All the other towns and villages along the south coast are to have real bypasses and it is right that Worthing should have one, too. The strength of public feeling on the matter has been manifested in public meetings and massive petitions of about 24,000 signatures against the route that was selected by the Minister last week, in comparison with one of just over 1,200 in favour of the route selected by the Government. We have had a number of public meetings which, by modern standards, were enormous, with the vast majority of the views expressed being against the preferred route and in favour of a real bypass. I do not think that the assessment that the Government published last week reflecting the Howard Humphries report reflects the strength of public feeling in favour of a bypass and against the preferred route.
  My hon. Friend's predecessor was kind enough to receive a deputation, led by the mayor, which spelt out the argument in considerable detail. The borough council thought it right to employ its own consultants, called Atkins, but no relation, I think, to my hon. Friend the Minister, and they drew attention to the serious deficiencies in the Howard Humphries report. The assumption about the speed at which lorries would travel if a bypass were built was far lower than is my experience. Such an assumption tends to bias the decision in favour of the inner route rather than a real bypass. We also believe that the disruption that could be caused to public services
  1408
  such as water, gas and electricity were grossly underestimated. In addition, we have considerable doubts about the traffic forecasts.
  I regret the preferred route that has been announced. My hon. Friend's predecessor was influenced considerably by the argument that, if he selected the inner route, he would immediately be able to compensate those who were blighted, whereas if he selected the bypass, where there are no properties, those in the inner route would not be formally blighted——
  Ms. Joan Ruddock rose——
  Mr. Higgins: No, I am not giving way. I have no time at all. It is not a matter for the Opposition Front Bench.
  With regard to the view that was taken by my hon. Friend's predecessor——
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. I am somewhat puzzled that, in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, when many issues are discussed briefly and at some speed throughout the night, and some hon. Members stay throughout the night to ensure that a balanced view is put, when an Opposition view is offered in truncated form, and when a Minister has refused to allow time, such a brief intervention is not allowed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is for the right hon. Gentleman whose debate it is to decide whether to give way. I must add that this will be a very short debate.
  Mr. Higgins: It is indeed a very short debate. This is traditionally an opportunity for Back Benchers to have their grievances redressed and argued before money is provided to the Government. It is not an Opposition Supply Day.
  This is a constituency matter. The Government ought to go ahead with a careful study which will reappraise the Howard Humphries report. It has agreed to reconsider the figures in the light of criticism made by Atkins, and has been prepared to set up a public inquiry. I welcome both.
  It is not sufficient, however, simply to revise the traffic forecasts, which have been severely criticised recently by the Public Accounts Committee, which said that the figures have tended to be underestimated and consequently less favourable to a bypass than they now will be. It is also important that a survey of traffic flows should be carried out.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will carry out the survey of traffic on the basis of up to date data. The present figures are not up-to-date. It is clear that the bypass would remove traffic going from west to east and east to west, but it would also have a significant effect on traffic going from the north to the east, the east to the north, the north to the west and the west to the north. If the bypass were built, all that traffic would be removed from Findon valley, which is a built-up area in my constituency. If, however, the preferred route is confirmed—I strongly hope that it will not be—traffic will still come through Findon valley, and I believe that that means that the road will have to be made a dual carriageway. If that is so, those costs ought to be included in an appraisal of the economic value of the bypass on the one side and the so-called preferred route on the other. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will examine the figures.

  1409
  Another point of grave concern has been the delay. My constituents whose homes have been threatened do not know at what stage a decision will be reached. They have had a year of serious uncertainty, and clearly it will be some time before the revised figures can be produced and the public inquiry can take place.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will make clear the position on blight, and will, if necessary, publish—in addition to the existing leaflets—a summary of where people stand.My impression is that, while those immediately on the route can now apply for a blight notice, those on either side—even if they are most seriously affected—have no prospect of compensation until 12 months after the final decision is made. That, in my view, is quite unfair, not only in this context but in the context of the Channel tunnel and other major developments. Those near to road or rail developments, as opposed to those on the exact route, must receive adequate compensation for the considerable anxiety and personal loss that they suffer. I feel strongly that the present compensation arrangements are inadequate.
  Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to reappraise the figures. I hope that they will pay particular attention to the points that I have mentioned, including the additional cost of junctions that would be incurred if the inner route were selected—for example, at Salvington hill. I am, however, pleased that there is to be a public inquiry, which would not have happened 10 years ago. There should be a level playing field in regard to appraisal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to ensure that that happens so that the inner route and the bypass route can be appraised.
  The latest document issued by the Department says that figures will also be produced for a bypass route through the Findon gap, which is south of Cissbury Ring. I think that that would have serious disadvantages, not least because of the danger that building would go on up to that line. If the line is north of Cissbury Ring—which I believe is the alternative that we ought to appraise—we shall find that the building is effectively isolated by the existence of Cissbury Ring at that point. We need a clear choice between the route that has been announced as the preferred route and a real bypass, avoiding the town completely, through the Findon gap and north of Cissbury Ring.
  7.57 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for his kind remarks at the beginning of what has—inevitably and rightly—been essentially a matter affecting his constituency. Not only has my right hon. Friend a distinguished position in the House, but he is chairman of our Back-Bench committee on transport matters.
  I hope that Opposition Members will not think me discourteous if I say that time has prevented too many interventions: the restrictions placed on me do not give me such time to answer the debate.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has properly mentioned the lack of time remaining for the debate. May I point out the strange
  1410
  nature of such an exchange? It was in fact, only through the courtesy of Opposition Members who truncated the previous debate that this subject was allowed to be discussed at all. There have, in fact, been three discourtesies, and I should like to place that on record.
  Mr. Atkins: It was my understanding that this was very much a constituency matter, and I shall certainly read with care what my right hon. Friend has said on behalf of his constituents.
  Ms. Ruddock: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Will he tell the House whether the proposal for the bypass has the support of the county council? What environmental damage does he think that the bypass might do to the South Downs?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady will know as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that inevitably in all these matters, as I have discovered in the short time that I have been in this post, there are almost as many people in favour of a proposal as there are against. The persuasive powers of my right hon. Friend are such that I shall certainly look at all the submissions, whether from the hon. Lady, with whom I look forward to working, or from my right hon. Friend. We can reassure the people of Worthing who may or may not be affected by the proposals that my predecessor enunciated that their views will be looked at as carefully as possible.
  It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  A27 (Bypass)

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Norman Lamont be discharged from the Select Commit tee on Public Accounts and Mr. Peter Lillcy be added to the Committee—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

    TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Secretary Wakeham nd Mr. David Hunt be discharged from the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House and Sir Geoffrey Howe and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
    Mr. Terence L. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a fundamental feature of our parliamentary proceedings that contol of money is crucial to the way in which power is exercised. The basis of our proceedings is that money should not be provided to Government from the Consolidated Fund until hon. Members have had the opportunity to express their grievances. That means that Ministers have to reply.
    The Consolidated Fund debate is essentially one for Back Benchers to have an opportunity to raise matters of particular concern to their constituents. There is always a considerable constraint on time, and many hon. Members have not been fortunate enough to take part in the debate. Many hon. Members have been here throughout the night. I certainly have. It is quite wrong for points of order to be made which curtail debate even more.
    While it is, of course, appropriate that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should intervene, this is not an Opposition day. As I have said, it is a day on which Back Benchers may address grievances to the Government and on which Ministers reply. In his point of order, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that he is on

    1411
    the Procedure Committee. I chaired the Procedure Committee which made the arrangements whereby hon. Members are cut off at this hour. That was a fairly important reform and gives Back Benchers a chance to air their grievances.
    Such an intervention was inappropriate. No one wishes to inhibit Front-Bench spokesmen, and I would be happy on any other occasion to give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I certainly did not wish to be discourteous to her, but I had a matter of major constituency interest to put forward and an incredibly limited time in which to deploy complicated arguments. I hope that she will understand why I did not give way.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that it would be wise to leave the matter there.

  Street Lighting
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  8.4 am
  Ms. Joan Walley: At the outset, I should like to——
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is cutting into the time of his hon. Friend. I hope that he will not do that.
  Mr. Cohen: I hope that we are not adjourning the Consolidated Fund debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Question has been put that the House do now adjourn. That means that he is cutting into the time of his hon. Friend. I hope that he will not do that.
  Mr. Cohen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will oppose that motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that.
  Ms. Walley: Pedestrian safety and street lighting requires urgent debate and I am grateful for the chance to raise this important matter.
  The Government have been in office for 10 years and pedestrians in various parts of the country do not feel safe outside their homes. In particular, they do not feel safe on busy roads where' there is no easily accessible and safe place to cross the road. Very often, they do not feel safe in residential streets, particularly those built 30 or 40 years ago, which do not qualify for general improvement area status, and where the street lights are almost obsolete, and incapable of providing the lighting that is neded in 1989.
  This is not just a constituency but a national matter, which affects mostly women, the elderly, the disabled and children. All are increasingly vulnerable when they go out after dark and find it difficult to cross the road because of lack of pedestrian crossings or of adequate in street lighting. As a result, the quality of life, which matters greatly to all, has suffered. Women do not even feel safe when collecting their children from nursery school after dark. They are afraid of attack. Elderly people are worried because although they know that the condition of the pavements is bad, with cracks and holes, they cannot see them if there is no light.
  As citizens, we should be outraged when somebody almost has to be killed before a pedestrian crossing is provided on a busy street. We have to put up with all sorts of similar problems, and I do not want our elderly parents to have to live like that, or our children to be brought up in such an environment. I shall concentrate on the way in which public expenditure has become the victim of tunnel vision, instead of being aimed at meeting such needs, which were laid out in a recent report by the National Consumer Council.
  How does this affect my constituency? I shall refer to the many petitions that I have received in the past year. The number of them made it essential that I took up the matter with the city council, Staffordshire county council

  1413
  and the previous Minister with responsibility for district lighting. What went wrong? Why are so many people in my constituency concerned? What do we need to do, and who should do it? How can we ensure that something gets done? As the debate comes at the end of a long Session, I hope that it will enable us to shed some light on the matter. I hope that the Minister will use the recess to think about this, and that he will come back with some positive ideas for action to improve matters.
  In many parts of my constituency there is not much light in the streets. For example, constituents in Duddell road presented me with a petition, shortly followed by one from people who live in Ashman street, who realised that the street lighting there was as bad as that in Duddell road. In Minder grove, in Sneyd green, residents feel that their street lighting is outdated. An estate in the Stanfields area of Burslem Park asked for help, and I took up the matter with the Midlands electricity board. It told me that the street lighting was out of date, so it was difficult to have decent lighting there. I have a series of letters, including one from the Hollywall estates residents organisation, which said:
  "We decided to ask for improvement in the quality of street lighting. A representative of the City Engineers Department, a Mr. P. Stephens, came to tell us how difficult it was going to be to get the work done on improvements, but even he admitted that the standard of street lighting on Hollywall Estate is `Abysmal!'. The aim was, and still is to make the people of the estate, particularly the elderly, feel safe to go out from behind their locked doors after dark. We have started a Neighbourhood Watch and we hoped that this in conjunction with improved street lighting would help achieve our aim. We do not have a large vandalism problem, yet. We would like to prevent this."
  Finally, I received a petition from residents on the Burslem Park estate. They want to have their lighting improved and they want lighting to be provided in many back alleyways and unadopted roads on the estate.
  I took up these matters with the city council, the county council and the Minister who then had responsibility for these matters. Late one midsummer night this year—it had just about become dark at midnight but it was a night of pouring rain—I walked the streets of my constituency with members of the parliamentary lighting group, local residents, councillors and the city engineer. It was hoped
  that with the presence of the lighting group and representatives from Philips we would have an independent assessment of what needed to be done to improve the street lights in residential areas. It is to main trunk roads that the majority of Government moneys are directed through the county councils and the highways departments.
  We took a close look at all the problems and it was explained to me by the chairman of the city council highways committee, Councillor Gordon Tuck, that the responsibility rests with the county council because Stoke-on-Trent is not a highway authority in its own right. The county council explained to me that it could not do anything because over the past two years its capital budget has been reduced by 40 per cent. The Minister will know that the transport supplementary grant is so organised that 95 per cent. of the money is spent on designated, named, major traffic schemes. The small-scale expenditure that I am talking about is not that sort of designated expenditure, and it would seem that there is no chance that
  1414
  the money will be made available. I learnt from the county council that £17,000 has been made available for street lighting for the entire county in the past year.
  When the time comes for the Minister to reply, I am sure that he will leap to his feet—I know that he visited Stoke-on-Trent in a previous incarnation—to tell us that the matter has nothing to do with him and that another Department should realise what needs to be done. But if a local authority is not a highway authority in its own right, it has no control over the priority that is attached to street lighting. If a local authority has not been designated by the Department of the Environment as an urban programme area, as is the case with Stoke-on-Trent, funds that might be available to similar parts of the country are not available to spend on street lighting.
  Stoke has no programme area status, and has been denied access to another budget that could have helped us to improve street lighting. Government cuts to local councils have left them without money to invest in essential infrastructure on the scale that is required and which I and others have identified in Stoke-on-Trent.
  We could ask the Home Office whether it could help. A major part of the debate relates to crime prevention. I am sure that the Government will be aware of an important report by Kate Painter on the Edmonton project, which was funded by the Thorn lighting division. That project shows that, without doubt, improved street lighting can dramatically, immediately and at low cost reduce specific crime and—this is equally important—the fear of crime within a locality.
  I asked the county council whether money could be made available through the police budget to improve street lighting. Costings show that for every £500 spent on improved street lighting, the cost of crime is reduced by about £2,000 annually.
  If the existing obsolete street lighting is replaced there will be at least two further benefits. Photographs taken all over my constituency prove that the existing standards have rotted, and there is a clear danger that they could fall and hit people. Also, if the outdated technology is improved, huge energy savings will be made. Is there any possibility that the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Energy will consider the matter in terms of the energy savings that could result from a short-term investment?
  I return to my constituency, and to the councillors, city engineer, and crime prevention officer who walked the streets of Tunstall, Burslem and Smallthorne with me in the pouring rain on a dark night in the hope of bringing the problem of street lighting in those places to the Government's attention.
  It would cost approximately £500,000 per annum to replace the city's 22,000 street lights every 25 to 30 years. I have already explained that only £17,000 was available last year for the county's entire lighting needs. A large proportion of street lighting on Stoke-on-Trent's 361 unclassified roads is now at the end of its useful life and is deteriorating rapidly. Current lighting levels in those areas fall well below even the minimum recommended by the British Standards Institution, represented by the figure of 1·0. The average standard achieved in Stoke-on-Trent is only 0·6, which gives some idea of the extent of the problem.
  It is a question of the quality of life, but so far no policy has been formulated for directing money at lighting needs. Perhaps it would be possible to increase the transport

  1415
  supplementary grant. The Cabinet is currently dispensing the public expenditure allocations for next year. Perhaps there could be greater flexibility, so that 95 per cent. of the money available will not have to be spent on major, named schemes, with very little left for smaller projects.
  What are the Government doing to co-ordinate the activities of the different but relevant Departments? I should like to see established a rolling programme of street lighting improvement and replacement in my constituency and elsewhere in the country. I hope that, as we near the last day of the Session, the Government will announce the introduction of a mechanism to deal with the problems that I have described, so that in the future my constituents can leave their homes after dark and still feel safe—which is the most important thing of all.
  8.14 am
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, (Ms. Walley) on the way in which she has raised, with her own inimitable charm, the anxieties of her constituents expressed by way of petition and letter. It was right and proper that she should do so in some detail.
  Being the charitable lady that I know her to be, she will realise that I am not yet in a position to speak with great authority. The forthcoming holiday will be the time when I work my way through a great deal of the documentation which will include matters relating to pedestrian safety and lighting which she has drawn to the attention of the House.
  The hon. Lady will know that in a former incarnation within the Department of Trade and Industry, I was made fully aware of the activities of the parliamentary lighting group. Indeed, I addressed it on one auspicious evening. As a result of those responsibilities, I learned about the manufacturing problems arising from the lighting of pedestrian areas and streets.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I say that I shall read what she has had to say and what I have heard myself so that I shall be able to deal with the details when we return after a much-needed recess.
  Let me briefly touch upon what I understand to be the case for pedestrian safety, particularly in the context of lighting, which has been left to me by my predecessor and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department.
  The hon. Lady may or may not know that a leaflet on pedestrian safety was published not too long ago. It contained new proposals for making walking safer. I was fascinated to learn that the hon. Lady trekked the streets of her constituency in the pouring rain one summer evening. We all get involved in such activities in one way or another. She may have recognised then, if she had not already done so in the course of her activities, that the safety of pedestrians, whether in daylight or at night, is a matter for the Department of Transport.
  The document deals with five areas—education and training; road engineering; our conspicuity campaign to encourage greater use of fluorescent and reflective clothing; the responsibilities of pedestrians as well as those in the local authority who look after their safety, and, above all, research, one of the areas in which I was slightly involved in the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The leaflet has been well received by many people, certainly by all those involved in such matters. As the hon. Lady says, street lighting is important to road safety. The number of night-time casualty accidents is 30 per cent. Of
  1416
  the total number of accidents, whereas night-time traffic flows amount to about 25 per cent. of the total traffic. It is clear from those statistics that the accident rate is higher at night, a matter to which the hon. Lady drew the attention of the House. Moreover, night-time accidents in general are more severe, with a higher proportion of casualties killed or seriously injured.
  Road lighting reduces night-time accidents by some 30 per cent. Most urban roads are lit. I have visited Stoke-on-Trent three times, but I am not familiar with all the roads there. However, I suspect that most will be lighted to a greater or lesser extent. Even so, about 95 per cent. of pedestrian casualties and 80 per cent. of pedestrian fatalities occur on roads in built-up areas.
  In 1987, the latest year for which we have figures, 28 per cent. of pedestrian casualties and 45 per cent. of pedestrian deaths occurred during night time. The proportion of pedestrians killed or seriously injured is higher at night than in daylight—about 38 per cent. at night, compared with 28 per cent. in daylight.
  Accidents at or within 50 m of pedestrian crossings are more frequent at night, but there are few such accidents on unlit streets. The Department's guidance on lighting at crossings includes advice on supplementary lighting on the footways in the vicinity of a crossing. Floodlighting of crossings leads to poorer relative illumination of the surrounding roadway, where more pedestrians are injured than on the crossing itself.
  As the hon. Lady drew to the attention of the House, street lighting in urban areas has three benefits. There are the road safety and general pedestrian amenity aspects, as well as the deterrence of crime and, as the hon. Lady rightly said, the improved safety of women at night.
  The hon. Lady asked about the involvement of a variety of Departments and I shall get around to answering her questions in due course. The Home Office and the Departments of Transport, of Trade and Industry and of the Environment deal with safety as it relates to street lighting and the general pedestrian amenity.
  In England local authority expenditure on lighting has remained around 14 or 15 per cent. of their total road current expenditure over the past five years—although, as the hon. Lady said, in Staffordshire it fell from 16 per cent. to 13 per cent. in that same period. During the past five years local authorities have not always spent all the money allocated for road expenditure. The hon. Lady will know better than I do what Staffordshire spends and she will also appreciate that these are matters for the authority.
  I cannot really comment on capital allocations overall. because those are matters for the Department of the Environment, and it is down to each county authority or metropolitan borough to decide how to allocate its expenditure. I can only suggest that if the hon. Lady speaks to her local authority with the same persuasive charm with which she has addressed the House its representatives will recognise the needs of her constituents in Burslem and other places where lighting is weak.
  Road lighting is designed so that pedestrians will appear as a dark outline shape against a bright road surface. It provides some illumination of adjacent footways to aid pedestrians and forewarn drivers. Lighting should be in operation from about 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise. The practice adopted by some local authorities of extinguishing some lighting during periods of very low traffic flow is detrimental to the interests of emergency services, to public security and

  1417
  especially to pedestrians, as well as incurring a loss of accident savings. Moreover, the energy saved is relatively small in terms of costs. Such a practice is not generally helpful to the safety of pedestrians in areas that need lighting.
  Of the 108 English local highway authorities, only 71 included bids for street lighting expenditure in their transport policies and programmes submissions for 1989–90. Some of the planned work is likely to have been for the benefit of residential areas, although few authorities specified that. The hon. Lady asked what expenditure would be in the current public expenditure round. I am not in a position to judge at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will doubtless be examining all matters relating to that in considerable detail. Time will tell, although, on a brief acquaintance with the Department for which I am now privileged to speak, it appears that we have had a very large allocation in our budget, and we hope that the transport community will benefit across the board.
  The hon. Lady referred to other Departments. She may or may not be aware that the Home Office is sponsoring
  1418
  research into the link between low lighting and crime. So far, there is no research evidence to show that road lighting reduces crime rates, although common sense suggests that it must. Some research shows that better lighting significantly reduces the fear of crime. Of course people will be happier if they go out and can feel secure because they can see their way. We all know the problems that arise with dark alley ways, particularly on housing estates, and with underpasses. The Home Office is addressing itself to precisely those matters.
  All in all, I am delighted that the hon. Lady has drawn my attention to these important matters, which I shall have to consider in detail. As I acquaint myself with the subject during the next few weeks I shall reflect on the hon. Lady's questions and ensure that I ask similar questions of my officials, to see whether we can find solutions that will be of benefit to pedestrians generally and especially to those constituents to whom the hon. Lady referred in the part of her constituency that had difficulties. I hope that next time we meet across a crowded Chamber, we shall be able to discuss the matter in more detail.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Dog Handlers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the prison department has withdrawn payment of the grooming or care allowance to those prison officer dog handlers obliged to care for the dogs at home in their own time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prison officer dog handlers used to receive one hour plain time overtime per day to cover the time spent grooming, exercising and feeding the dog.

  Fresh start working abolished overtime beginning in 1987. We accept the need to recompense dog handlers for their continuing responsibility for the care and maintenance of their dog and have made two offers to the Prison Officers' Association, both of which have been rejected. Negotiations should be resumed in the near future.

  Conservative Party Conference 1988
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Sussex on the number of individuals upon whom he has records on computer relating to the 1988 Conservative party conference; for how long it is proposed to keep them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  No. This is an operational matter for the chief constable.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any circumstance applies, which is neither exceptional nor compelling under his guidelines, but which has arisen because of(a) a mistake or (b) a misrepresentation of a relevant fact by an immigration officer, resulting in a proposed removal, in which he will accept representations from right hon. or hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether (i) a mistake or (ii) a misrepresentation of a relevant fact is an exceptional and compelling circumstance enabling representations to him from right hon. or hon. Members.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question, on 16 June 1989 at column 565.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Immigration Service Union about the granting of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom to political asylum seekers as a result of his Department's backlog criteria; and what has been his response.
  794
  Mr. Renton
  Officials in the refugee unit have corresponded with the metropolitan liaison officer at the union's national executive committee, answering inquiries about a range of issues relating to asylum procedures, including the granting of exceptional leave to remain.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  From the beginning of the 1988–89 parliamentary Session to 26 July 1989, 107 statutory instruments were issued by the Home Office, of which 10 were subject to affirmative resolution, and 44 to the negative resolution, procedure. For the four preceding parliamentary Sessions, I refer the hon. Member to the respective Journals of the House.

  Prisons (Pin-up Pictures)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all offensive pin-ups have now been removed from prison offices, particularly from rule 43 units for sex offenders.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Circular instruction 12/1989 (a copy of which is in the Library) advised governors in March this year that regional directors would be consulting and issuing guidance on the action which should be taken to prevent the display of offensive material in public and shared areas of prisons. This work is being carried forward, but information is not available centrally on the present position in individual establishments.

  Prisons (Drug Addicts)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the available facilities in gaols in England and Wales for the treatment of known drug addicts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As the hon. Member is aware, the possibility of history of drugs misuse is one of the factors medical officers enquire into during the course of their examination of inmates being received into prison custody. The nature and extent of medical help offered is determined by the medical officer's clinical assessment of the individual case.

  The policy statement and guidelines, copies of which are in the Library, referred to in answer to the question from the hon. Member on 9 February at column 760 describe the framework for the development of help for drug misusers in prison.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the percentage of male and female prisoners in England and Wales who derived from ethnic minority origin in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988 and (e) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement;
  795
  (2) what is the total number of female prisoners currently being held under sentence or on remand in a gaol in England and Wales who derive from ethnic minority origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Population in Prison Service establishments on 31 March 1989: by ethnic origin, and sex

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  All persons in Prison Service establishments

  Males

  39,204

  4,812

  1,287

  877

  1,226

  47,406

  Females

  1,202

  341

  29

  63

  139

  1,774

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  40,406

  5,153

  1,316

  940

  1,365

  49,180

  Females by type of prisoner

  Remand

  292

  84

  4

  19

  77

  476

  Sentenced

  906

  253

  25

  44

  61

  1,289

  Civil

  4

  4

  —

  —

  1

  9

  Prisons (Heroin)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of heroin finds in gaols in England and Wales for each of the last two years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For the years to 31 May 1988 and 31 May 1989 there were, respectively, 17 and 31 reported finds of heroin.

  Measures to prevent and detect illicit drugs are kept continuously under review.

  "Custody and the Community"
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those organisations and individuals who responded to his Department's document entitled "Custody and the Community" published in July 1988; if he will indicate which of those listed organisations and individuals favoured a supervision and restriction order, and which favoured the creation of a new sentence that combines probation and community service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have nothing to add to the replies given to questions from the hon. Member on 2 May at column 31 and from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 22 June at column 187.

  Female Prisoners (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of female prisoners currently being held under sentence or on remand in a gaol in England and Wales whose area of origin is either west Africa, Latin America or Pakistan, and who have been convicted or are charged with a drug-related offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The offences with which remand prisoners are charged are not recorded centrally until the completion of court proceedings. On 30 June 1988, the latest date for which information is readily available, about 90 females serving custodial sentences in prison service establishments for drugs offences were known to be citizens of Pakistan or west African or Latin American countries.
  796
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information for each of the years 1985–88 was published in table 6 of "The Prison Population in 1988" (Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 12/89), a copy of which is in the Library. The latest readily available information is given in the table.

  Prisoners (Drug Users)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prisoners currently remanded or sentenced in gaols in England and Wales who are known to be drug users; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of inmates reported by medical officers as having some degree of dependence on drugs at the time of their reception into custody is included in the medical statistics on page 78 of the report on the work of the prison service April 1987-March 1988 (Cm. 516) a copy of which is in the Library. They show that 2,628 were so reported during that year.

  Prisoners (Drugs Offences)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prisoners in England and Wales who have been sentenced to a period of custody for a drug-related offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest readily available information, for 30 June 1988, was published in table 8 of "The Prison Population in 1988" (Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 12/89), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prisoners (Suicide Attempts)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prisoners who attempted to commit suicide during 1987–88 in gaols in England and Wales who were known to be drug addicts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not available.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prisoners who committed suicide during 1987–88 in England and Wales who were known to be drug addicts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 25 July to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) at column 613.

  Contaminated Goods (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been initiated in accordance with section 38 of the Public Order Act 1986 concerning the contamination of or interference with goods with intention of causing public alarm or anxiety; how many persons have been convicted(a) on indictment and (b) summarily; and what penalties were imposed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information available to me, which may be incomplete, shows no persons prosecuted in 1987 under section 38 of the Public Order Act 1986. Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  CS Gas and Water Cannons
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is considering use of(a) water cannons and (b) CS gas by police forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following an evaluation of water cannon, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) announced on 18 March 1987 at column 529 in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) that it was not proposed to add water cannon to the range of equipment available to the police. That remains the position.

  As the House was informed at the time, plastic baton rounds and CS equipment for use in dealing with serious public disorder were made available to police forces in Great Britain following the riots in 1981. My right hon. Friend announced the arrangements for supply of this equipment to police forces and the issue of guidelines covering its use in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 19 May 1986 at columns 15 and 16.

  Aid
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all countries which received assistance from his Department during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have provided assistance to a number of countries in a variety of fields including the fight against drugs; training of police officers, prison officers and immigration officers; forensic science service assistance and training; and the provision of equipment.

  The countries we have assisted in this way include Bermuda, Colombia, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Finland, France, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Lesotho, Oman, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey and the United States of America. In addition, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of fire service led a small team of London fire brigade officers to help in the aftermath of the earthquake in Armenia. A full list of the countries which we have assisted could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  London Fire Stations (Closures)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding proposals to close six London fire stations; and if he will make a statement.
  798
  Mr. Hurd
  I understand that London fire brigade's chief fire officer has recently completed a review of fire risk categorisation and standards of fire cover. The chief fire officer has yet to present his report and findings to the London fire and civil defence authority. Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services was consulted by the chief fire officer about the methodology used in the review.

  A fire authority which proposes to close a fire station is required to seek my approval to the closure under section 19 of the Fire Service Act 1947. No application for approval has yet been made. I remain committed to maintaining nationally recommended standards of fire cover.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any private limited company has ever had access to police files or to the police national computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No non-Government organisations have ever had direct access to the Police National Computer, but arrangements exist for information from police records, including records held on PNC, to be disclosed to selected organisations where this is clearly in the public interest. Access to force records is a matter for chief officers.

  Tamils
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Tamils referred to in his answer of 3 December 1987,Official Report, column 682 have (a) since left the United Kingdom, (b) been given leave to enter and (c) have their cases still under consideration.

  Mr. Renton
  I shall write to the hon. Member and deposit a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total arrests at, and ejections from, football matches in England and Wales in each of the last five seasons; and of these how many were(a) women, and (b) persons aged 65 years or over; and what information he has as to comparable statistics for Scottish League clubs over the same period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Committal Procedure
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department whether he has any proposals for reform of committal procedure.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am placing in the Library a copy of a consultation paper which my Department is issuing today, jointly with the Lord Chancellor's Department, on possible reform of committal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to obtain comments from practitioners and others on the suitability, practicability and implications for resource use of a possible new scheme to replace existing arrangements for mode of trial procedure and committal. Comments are requested by 3 November. In
  799
  the light of the comments received, we shall consider further whether and, if so, how to bring forward detailed proposals for legislative reform.

  Parking
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in his consideration of the report of the parking enforcement working party.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have given careful consideration to the report's conclusions. We have decided that no change should be made at present to the operation of parking enforcement outside London. The problems of parking enforcement in London raise many complex issues, to which we are giving urgent consideration.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip searches have been carried out on women in Her Majesty's prison, Durham, in each of the last six months; and how many forbidden or dangerous items have been found.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there were four in Durham during the last six months. These records show that from 1 January 1989 to 30 June 1989 each category A prisoner was strip-searched 2·4 times per month on average. No unauthorised article was found.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the report on Durham H wing by Anthony Lester, QC and Dr. Pamela Taylor, commissioned by Women in Prison, Prison Reform Trust, National Council for Civil Liberties and the Howard League; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received the report and its recommendations are currently being considered.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will authorise an increase in the amount of time allowed for exercise to women prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Durham.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will consider this in the light of the recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of prisoners who are employed; and what is the average working week, in Durham H wing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the 37 women held in H wing of Her Majesty's prison, Durham, 36 are employed. The average working week is 25 hours.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a full Home Office review of women prisoners' needs, environment and management.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The nature and requirements of the female prison population are already kept under regular review.

  Phan Ngoc Lan
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Phan Ngoc Lan, a Vietnamese refugee, wife of Di Quang Tri of 6 Gosport way, North Peckham estate, SE15, will be admitted to the United Kingdom from China.

  Mr. Renton
  Instructions for the issue of a visa have now been sent to the British embassy in Peking. Arrangements will be made through UNHCR as soon as possible for Phan Ngoc Lan to travel to the United Kingdom.

  Litter
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for leaving litter there have been in each of the past three years(a) in the borough of Taunton Dene, (b) in the London borough of Lambeth and (c) in England.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available to the Home Office, which may be incomplete, is given in the table. Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Persons proceeded against for litter offences

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Taunton Dene, petty sessional division

  1

  4

  2

  Lambeth, petty sessional division

  —

  —

  —

  England

  1,354

  1,392

  1,671

WALES

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Letters received from hon. Members during January 1989

  257

  Letters sent to hon. Members during January 1989

  246

  Letters received from hon. Members during the whole of this session up to 1 July 1989

  2,233

  Letters sent to hon. Members during the whole of this session up to 1 July 1989

  2,169

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the Government's response to the report by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee on inward investment into Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am pleased to announce that the response has been published today.

  Rural Initiatives
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has reached a decision on the future of the DRIVE grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  801
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The evaluation of the DRIVE grant scheme has demonstrated that the scheme has made a positive contribution to overcoming the problems of rural Wales. I have therefore decided that the scheme will be re-introduced from 1 September and will continue to be operated by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. The relaunched scheme will be competitive and will have the aim of increasing private sector investment on economic projects which create jobs and help to overcome deprivation in rural Wales. The scheme is expected to run until 1994–95 with up to £5 million of grant assistance available, and the scheme has the potential to generate more than £20 million of private sector investment and create over 1,000 jobs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total number of statutory instruments issued by my Department from November 1984 to 26 July 1989, for each calendar year, is as follows:

  Number

  November and December 1984

  20

  1985

  96

  1986

  110

  1987

  80

  1988

  83

  1989

  48

  Total figures are not readily available for each parliamentary Session.

  The number of negative and affirmative statutory instruments issued by my Department for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions is detailed in the following table:

  Negative

  Affirmative

  1984–85

  8

  —

  1985–86

  2

  —

  1986–87

  12

  13

  1987–88

  14

  4

  1988–89

  6

  —

  These figures are in respect of statutory instruments issued solely by my Department relating only to Wales and do not include statutory instruments made jointly which cover England and Wales.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many national curriculum documents he has despatched to local education authority schools by heading and by volume; what is the estimated cost of(a) production and (b) despatch; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The following documents in connection with the national curriculum have been distributed to local education authorities and schools by the Welsh Office. Most of the documents are produced and distributed by the Department and costs cannot be separately identified:802
  Circular 14/89: National Curriculum Mathematics and Science Orders.
  Circular 15/89: The School Curriculum and Assessment. Circular 32/89: Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum.
  Draft Circular and draft Regulations: National Curriculum Temporary Exceptions for Individual Pupils.
  Draft Circular and draft Regulations: Information for Parents.
  Draft Regulations: Exemptions from English at Key Stage 1.
  Circular letter to Headteachers: National Curriculum Implementation.
  Guidance Note: LEA Training Grant Scheme and ESG—National Curriculum Development Plans.
  Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Mathematics) Order 1989. Preceded by the Proposals of the Secretaries of State and consultation documents.
  Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989. Preceded by the Proposals of the Secretaries of State and consultation documents.
  Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in English) Order 1989. Preceded by the Proposals of the Secretaries of State and consultation documents.
  Design and Technology for ages 5–16. Proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales.
  English for ages 5–16. Proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Welsh for ages 5–16. Proposals of the Secretary of State for Wales.
  TVEI and the National Curriculum in Wales: The Way Forward.
  Teachers Guide to the National Curriculum.
  National Curriculum: Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT)—report.
  English for ages 5–11: booklet.
  English and the National Curriculum Key Stage 1: booklet.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take to assist those schools and local education authorities who are having difficulty in obtaining in good time national curriculum documents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The distribution of national curriculum documents from the Department to schools normally takes place through local education authorities but some urgent documents have been distributed to local education authorities and all schools directly. Both methods have involved tight delivery schedules and material has been distributed as quickly as possible. Officials continue to seek improvements in the efficiency and speed of the distribution network.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The amount spent on official hospitality in 1988–89 was £28,693·89.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance in terms of(a) programme and (b) value was made available

  803
  in 1988–89 to (a) El Salvador, (b) Honduras, (c) Guatemala, (d) Costa Rica, (e) Panama, (f) Nicaragua, (g) Cuba, and (h) Belize; and what is projected for 1989–90.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for the financial year 1988–89 are not yet available for all these countries. Latest provisional figures of bilateral aid in the calendar year 1988 are as follows:

  £ thousand

  El Salvador

  154

  Honduras

  1,212

  Guatemala

  4

  Costa Rica

  1,550

  Panama

  988

  Nicaragua

  180

  Cuba

  2

  Belize

  3,176

  This aid was in the form of technical co-operation, apart from:

  (a) Commonwealth Development Corporation investment of £817,000 in Costa Rica and £340,000 in Belize;

  (b) Capital aid of £1,547,000 for Belize and £615,000 for Honduras;

  (c) Financial aid under the aid and trade provision of £854,000 for Panama; and £47,000 for Belize;

  (d) £20,000 provided to Costa Rica and £180,000 to Nicaragua for relief measures following Hurricane Joan; further relief was provided in 1989;

  (e) £140,000 provided to El Salvador for refugee relief.

  These figures do not include our contribution through the European Community or to development projects jointly funded with British voluntary agencies.

  In 1989–90 we expect our aid to the region to remain at about the same level.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Jurors
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will increase the levels of compensation paid for loss of earnings to those on jury service;

  (2) what plans he has to increase the level of compensation paid for loss of earnings to self-employed people on jury service.

  The Solicitor-General
  The financial loss allowance, which may be paid to cover loss of earnings, was increased by a little less than nine per cent. on 3 July last.

  Where the period over which earnings or benefit are lost or additional expense is incurred is not more than four hours in any day, the maximum sum now payable is £16·15; where the period is more than four hours, the sum is £32·35; and where a juror has served on more than 10 days, for each day over the tenth the sum may exceed that specified but shall not exceed £64·70. These limits are reviewed annually in accordance with Treasury guidelines. All such sums are tax free. No distinction is made between those who are self-employed and others.

PRIME MINISTER

  Delors Report
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the Delors report on economic and monetary union.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes; a considerable number from a wide variety of organisations and individuals.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the horticultural industry.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 April 1989 I have received representations regarding the horticultural industry on the subject of pesticides, research and development and the Apple and Pear Development Council.

  United Nations Secretary General
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the Secretary General of the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  I last met the Secretary General on 14 June. I have no plans for a further meeting in the immediate future.

  Quality of Goods
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the quality of goods produced in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  I am frequently reminded of the importance to- business of consistently reaching high standards of quality in order to succeed in competitive markets. I strongly support British business in its efforts to achieve this, and the Department of Trade and Industry provides help to industry in this area through its quality and design initiatives.

  Army
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the Army.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive representations regarding the Army.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the level of unemployment.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations about the level of unemployment, which has shown a sustained fall over the past 35 months.

  Eastern Europe (Democracy)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on Britain's role in assisting the achievement of democracy in eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  We believe in giving practical encouragement to the growth of democracy in eastern
  805
  Europe. For example, we have offered Poland £25 million over five years to help develop the expertise needed to run democratic institutions and a market-based economy. I am glad that the Paris summit decided to co-ordinate such efforts internationally. I welcome the seminar for Hungarian politicians being organised this week by the Great Britain/east Europe centre and look forward to further such ventures. We are ready to help other east European countries which embark on the road to democracy.

  Health Care
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the Government's achievements in expanding health care.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of such representations. Since 1979, the level of resources for the NHS has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms and gross annual capital expenditure now stands at £1·25 billion. The numbers of those providing care has also increased, with 14,000 more doctors and dentists and 67,000 more nurses and midwives. There are now 1·5 million more in-patient cases treated in a year, 3·75 million more out-patient attendances and over 500,000 extra day cases. Considerable improvements have been made on screening, transplants and infant mortality. The Government have received much support for their commitment and record on expanding and improving the level of health care and for their proposals to build on these successes to create a service which is even more responsive to the needs of local communities whilst allowing patients improved choice.

  Litter
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the Government's proposals for dealing with the litter problem.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government announced on 20 July our proposals for legislation to combat the menace of litter.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration she has given to an environmental protection commission, similar to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States of America, to co-ordinate the activities of various Government Departments on green issues.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government considered the case for an environmental protection agency or commission in their reply to the second report from the Environment Committee on toxic waste (Cm. 679). The Government do not accept the need for structural changes.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she is taking to co-ordinate the work of Government Departments on environmental policies.

  The Prime Minister
  Regular contacts between Departments, at all levels, ensure that the Government's policies on environmental issues are fully co-ordinated.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to raise the common fisheries policy for discussion at the next European Council meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Secondary Education
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding secondary education.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not received any recent representations about secondary education. The introduction of the national curriculum from autumn this year will help to improve the standards achieved by maintained secondary schools.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the steel industry.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  House of Lords (Abolition)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received seeking the abolition of the House of Lords.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government receive representations from time to time advocating abolition or reform of the House of Lords.

  Higher Education
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding higher education.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations on education matters, including the Government's policies for higher education, which are aimed at increasing participation beyond the record levels already achieved.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the administration of justice.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received representations about a number of matters relating to the administration of justice.

  Biggin Hill (Selection Centre)
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Prime Minister what response she has made to the petition handed in to No. 10 Downing street on 14 July, with regard to the proposed closure of the RAF officer and aircrew selection centre at Biggin Hill.

  The Prime Minister
  I noted the petition carefully and I readily understand the strong feelings of those who wish to see the RAF's historic links with Biggin Hill retained.
  807
  Nevertheless, the RAF ceased flying from Biggin Hill in 1959 and the officer and aircrew selection centre is now the only unit based at the station. The decision to transfer this unit to the RAF college, Cranwell, was taken in the interests of efficiency, economy and the present day needs of the Royal Air Force. The memorial chapel will be retained at Biggin Hill as a permanent tribute to the station's role in the Battle of Britain.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the target date for the issue of the Cabinet Office's list of ministerial responsibilities encompassing the recent ministerial changes.

  The Prime Minister
  As soon as possible during the summer recess.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will remind Ministers to ensure that during the holiday period their private offices do not omit to send hon. Members a copy as well as an original of all ministerial letters.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has written to Ministers accordingly.

  Retired Ministers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what will be the total amount paid to Ministers retired from ministerial office following her latest announcements; and if any such Minister will not receive compensation.

  The Prime Minister
  Severance payments arising from the resignations announced on 24–25 July total £41,929. These will be made to outgoing Lords Ministers under the provisions of section 13 of the Parliamentary Pension Act 1984. The severance scheme recommended by the TSRB for Commons Ministers has not yet been implemented.

  Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

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

ENERGY

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the average sterling equivalent pump price per litre of premium grade petrol over the first four months of 808(a) excluding retailers' margin and Government taxes and duties and (b) including all Government taxes and duties in each European Community member state.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department of Energy does not have data on retailers' margins. The figures from the Commission of the European Communities on the pump price (in pence per litre) of premium grade petrol in each of the member states, over the first four months of 1989 is as follows:

  Excluding Tax and Duty

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Belgium

  12·41

  13·11

  13·22

  16·72

  Denmark

  12·61

  13·37

  13·93

  16·58

  West Germany

  11·11

  12·08

  12·32

  16·49

  Greece

  9·85

  10·38

  11·05

  14·00

  Spain

  12·26

  12·87

  13·31

  14·66

  France

  10·24

  10·34

  10·90

  13·75

  Eire

  14·36

  14·11

  14·49

  14·61

  Italy

  12·34

  12·37

  13·03

  15·73

  Luxembourg

  12·85

  12·85

  14·02

  15·74

  Netherlands

  12·86

  13·55

  14·53

  17·96

  Portugal

  13·68

  14·32

  14·28

  15·62

  United Kingdom

  11·86

  12·86

  13·34

  15·33

  Including Tax and Duty

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Belgium

  37·44

  38·32

  38·82

  43·41

  Denmark

  52·06

  52·83

  54·01

  57·76

  West Germany

  35·36

  36·47

  37·11

  42·09

  Greece

  28·42

  28·25

  28·47

  28·44

  Spain

  36·25

  36·52

  39·96

  37·40

  France

  44·63

  44·89

  46·19

  49·95

  Eire

  48·10

  48·65

  49·63

  50·06

  Italy

  56·80

  56·95

  57·66

  58·25

  Luxembourg

  30·70

  30·71

  32·28

  34·36

  Netherlands

  42·58

  43·44

  44·95

  49·28

  Portugal

  44·51

  44·51

  44·94

  45·23

  United Kingdom

  37·14

  38·30

  38·85

  41·14

  Efficiency
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made towards achieving the aim of 20 per cent. energy saving in the United Kingdom economy, as identified by the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  When the Energy Efficiency Office was established in 1983, we believed that the nation could improve its energy efficiency by 20 per cent. leading to savings of £7 billion in our annual energy bill. At our last calculation in December 1987, the UK had so improved its energy efficiency as to be saving some £2·3 billion per year at 1983 prices. At this rate, the £7 billion or 20 per cent. saving is likely to be achieved by 1995.

  On-shore Licensing
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to announce a third round of onshore licensing.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a notice inviting applications for landward exploration licences in a third round of onshore licensing. The notice will be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes at the earliest possible opportunity. Applications will be invited for any currently unlicensed

  809
  areas in the United Kingdom within the boundaries defined by the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1984, and in accordance with the guidance given in the Gazette notice. In addition, holders of old-style exploration licences (XLs) will be allowed to convert them to new exploration licences provided that they are ready to carry out a drilling programme.

  Successful applicants will be offered landward exploration licences under the terms of the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1984. The licences will be offered for a non-extendible term of six years and will entitle the licensee to carry out seismic survey and deep drilling work, subject to the need to obtain consent from the appropriate mineral planning authorities.

  Application forms and guidance notes will be available from my Department. Applicants will be expected to offer a suitable programme of exploration, which will generally involve both seismic survey and drilling work, designed to cover the whole of the area they are applying for.

  Applications will be returnable on 17 and 18 October 1989. I hope to be able to announce awards within a few months thereafter.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the contribution of renewable energy sources to Britain's energy needs in the years 1995, 2000 and 2010.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The most recent estimates of the potential contribution from renewable energy sources were published in energy paper 55, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. The Government intend to set orders for up to 600 MW of renewable energy capacity during the 1990s, in addition to whatever is contracted by the end of this year under the non-fossil fuel obligation in the Electricity Bill. The proposed levels of these special 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.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what assessment he has made of the impact on the local economy, of the rundown in the deep coal mining industry of(a) the south Yorkshire and (b) the north Yorkshire areas.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  While no such specific assessments have been carried out, my Department helps to alleviate the difficulties caused by colliery closures through its funding of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the coal-fired power stations operating in the United Kingdom, their opening date and anticipated closing date.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The number of statutory instruments made by Ministers in my Department during each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the present Session to date, is:

  Parliamentary Session

  Total

  Negative

  Affirmative

  Not required to be laid before Parliament

  1984ߝ85

  195

  4

  3

  188

  1985ߝ86

  146

  10

  2

  134

  1986ߝ87

  56

  6

  2

  48

  1987ߝ88

  89

  16

  5

  68

  1988ߝ89

  34

  6

  3

  25

  Councillor Bett (Letter)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his response to the letter from Councillor Graham Bett, the chair of Leicester city council's policy and resources (development schemes) sub-committee, dated 21 July.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend received a letter from Councillor Bett on 25 July and will be responding to him shortly.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the benefits of the combined heat and power schemes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Where it is economic, combined heat and power technology produces net benefits which stem from its higher fuel efficiencies compared with conventional plant. There are likely to be environmental benefits as a result of the reduction in the amount of fuel needed to meet a given demand for heat and power compared with using separate technologies. It is in recognition of these benefits that the Government have supported and promoted the development of economic CHP schemes. They have introduced measures in the Electricity Bill to enable CHP to compete with other established electricity suppliers. For example, licensed CHP operators will have new powers to break streets to lay electricity lines and heat mains. The Bill also enables the Director of Electricity Supply to monitor and collect information on the use and application of CHP. Output from CHP schemes based on non-fossil fuels such as refuse or landfill gas will count towards the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of cash guarantee demanded by the East Midlands electricity board in respect of the combined heat and power scheme in Leicester.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a commercial matter between the East Midlands electricity board and Leicester Energy Ltd.

  Leicester Energy Limited
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in relation to the meeting held between Leicester Energy Ltd. and officials from his office in the recent past, he will state(a) the length of the meeting, (b) the date of the meeting, (c) the names of the officials attending and (d) what action was proposed by the Government to assist the project.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Officials of my Department's electricity division and Energy Efficiency Office have met representatives of Leicester Energy Ltd. on a number of occasions. Representatives of Leicester Energy Ltd. and of the East Midlands electricity board last met my officials on 19 July. The parties confirmed that their decision not to proceed with the Leicester project was taken on commercial grounds and therefore the issue of Government assistance was not raised.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is, for each year since 1974, the total public expenditure on energy conservation schemes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Expenditure by my Department on energy efficiency programmes since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  £ millions

  1979/80

  2·4

  1980/81

  4·5

  1981/82

  6·9

  1982/83

  9·4

  1983/84

  11·4

  1984/85

  17·5

  1985/86

  122·5

  1986/87

  124·5

  1987/88

  18·6

  1988/89

  18·5

  11986 was Energy Efficiency Year.

  Budget allocation for 1989–90 is £15 million. Information on years before 1979–80 is not readily available on a comparable basis.

  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
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 July 1989. c. 723] The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) recently commissioned consultants to assist it with its longer-term strategic thinking. In line with the consultants' recommendations, the AEA 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. Each will have its own chief executive, who will be responsible for its efficient and profitable development. I understand that a number of key appointments will be announced shortly. The businesses will serve customers worldwide and will spearhead the effective commercial exploitation in selected markets of the unique skills which the AEA has built up over the years, largely in the service of the nuclear industry.
  812
  The Government welcome these developments. I believe that the AEA has the potential to improve the performance of a wide range of British industry. The Government also support its drives for increased exports and for greater efficiency.

  The AEA has recently submitted a revised corporate plan on the basis of the new business structure. My Department will be discussing this with the AEA in the coming months. It will also be consulting the authority about any changes which may be needed in the working relationship between the Department and the authority to reflect these developments and to secure the best value for money from the authority's operations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Counter Services
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the Post Office in the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on Post Office Counter Services at Crown offices.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report (Cmnd. 398) was published on 23 June 1988. In September 1988 the Post Office produced an initial progress report detailing its response to the 80 recommendations made by the MMC on various aspects of the operation of Crown offices and wider issues. Of these, 35 were identified as of priority. As indicated by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in a written answer on 31 December,Official Report, column 271, the Post Office accepted 68 of the Commission's recommendations, rejected one and had reservations or qualifications about the remaining 11. The reply also indicated that my Department had agreed a detailed timetable for implementation of the accepted recommendations, many of which needed an extended period for implementation, and would be monitoring the Post Office's progress on the basis of reports in June 1989 and June 1991.

  I have now received the Post Office's report on progress to May 1989 and I am placing copies in the Library of the House. Good progress has been made in a number of areas. The report indicates that 18 of the recommendations which were wholly or partly accepted, including eight of the priority recommendations, have been implemented. They include improvements to budgetary arrangements, management information and working procedures; and the inclusion in this year's corporate plan, which we are currently considering, of the analysis of options for the business recommended by the MMC.

  Most of the remaining recommendations, including 24 of the priority recommendations, are on course for implementation within the agreed timetable. There has, however, been slippage on 14 of the recommendations. My Department will continue to monitor implementation of the outstanding recommendations and will pay particular attention to progress on those which are behind schedule. A further formal report will be made in June 1991.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on implementation of the recommendations of the Neill committee on regulatory matters at Lloyd's.
  813
  Mr. Redwood
  Lloyd's was asked to implement the substance of the Neill report within two years. The Neill report contained 70 recommendations, of which 69 were addressed to Lloyd's, with the purpose of ensuring that regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's give protection for names comparable to that provided for investors under the Financial Services Act. The chairman of Lloyd's has sent me a memorandum which shows that, of the 70 recommendations, 65 have now been implemented. I will place copies of this memorandum in the Library.

  The one recommendation which was for Government to implement called for Lloyd's to be put in the same position as the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations in relation to exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to lay a draft order before Parliament in the autumn.

  Of the four other recommendations not yet implemented, Lloyd's has issued consulation papers relating to its proposals for a Lloyd's members' compensation scheme, and for financial standards applicable to underwriting agents. Lloyd's will implement these two recommendations as soon as possible after the process of consultation has been completed. Another Neill recommendation related to inception date accounting under which greater precision would be given to allocating risks to years of account. This is still being considered by Lloyd's and I have asked the chairman to keep in touch with me on the resolution of the difficulties. The remaining recommendation requires Lloyd's to consider at the end of 1991, if there is no marked shift in the distribution of auditing work, limiting the number of syndicates which may be audited by any one firm. Lloyd's is keeping this under continuing review and will take action as necessary.

  The implementation of the substances of the Neill report has been a massive task for Lloyd's, and I commend the council of Lloyd's for the vigour with which it has tackled it. The objective of the Neill report in providing increased protection for names has been achieved.

  As the council of Lloyd's recognises, regulation requires constant vigilance and review and regulatory arrangements cannot be set for all time. I will continue to keep in close touch with the chairman of Lloyd's on these matters.

  Commodity Futures
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take following the United States Commodity Futures Trading commission's assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction implicit in the terms of the exemption order issued on 15 May 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) wrote on 12 May to the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to express the Government's concerns about the need for moderation and restraint in the exercise of powers by one authority in respect of problems arising in the jurisdiction of another. In particular, he made clear our view that the CFTC should rely exclusively on the United Kingdom regulatory system for the protection of United States investors who place unsolicited futures business with United Kingdom firms. We are continuing to pursue this issue with CFTC representatives, keeping in close contact with the AFBD and other interested parties in the 814
  United Kingdom, with the aim of securing satisfactory arrangements which safeguard the public interest in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the terms arid conditions attached to the exemption order issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on 15 May 1989 under rule 30.10 of its rules, setting out the terms on which United Kingdom firms are permitted to transact business on United Kingdom markets for United States customers; and what assessment he has made of the problems which the exemption order will cause United Kingdom commodity trading companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  The terms and conditions attached to the exemption order issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on 15 May were published in the United States Federal Register on 19 May. I am placing a copy of the relevant extract in the Library of the House. The order will enable those United Kingdom Commodity trading companies which seek exemption under it to market United Kingdom futures products in the United States without being subject to the full range of United States regulatory controls. As a condition of exemption, the CFTC has insisted on one main departure from United Kingdom regulatory requirements. Under SIB's Financial Services (Clients' Money) Regulations, experienced and professional United Kingdom clients are allowed to release firms from the obligation to hold their funds on trust in separate client accounts. This option would not be available to American investors whose funds must be segregated in all cases, in line with current domestic United States practice. The Government consider that on balance the exemption order will benefit British firms trading in the United States. We have however made clear to the American authorities our objection to the jurisdictional reach of the order, in particular its implied application to unsolicited business placed by United States clients with United Kingdom firms in the United Kingdom. We are seeking a satisfactory resolution to this problem in discussions with the CFTC.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make an announcement about the appointment of a chairman of the financial reporting council.

  Mr. Redwood
  I shall make an announcement as soon as the appointment has been made. It is too early to say when that will be.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The answer to the question is contained in the following table:
  815

  Parliamentary procedure of the statutory instrument

  Total number of SIs

  Session

  negative

  affirmative

  non layers

  11988–89

  82

  5

  11

  98

  1987–88

  123

  30

  5

  158

  1986–87

  34

  11

  16

  61

  1985–86

  54

  16

  13

  83

  1984–85

  71

  14

  14

  99

  1 The number of Statutory Instruments for the 1988–89 session is up to and including 25 July 1989.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have approached his Department for information on 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The DTI has recorded over 246,000 requests for published information and other advice on the single market since the 'Europe open for business' campaign was launched in March 1988. The large majority of these requests have been from firms and business organisations. In addition, DTI Ministers and officials have spoken at more than 1,150 single market conferences and seminars since the campagin began; again mainly to business audiences.

  Cans
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has made representations to the canning industry or the large retail groups against the use of cans combining aluminium and steel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Recycling
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps has he taken this year to encourage recycling in industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This year, my Department has continued to encourage recycling wherever economically viable. In addition, my right hon. Friend announced on 10 May details of the Department's new environment programme, which is aimed at raising industry's awareness of environmental issues, encouraging companies to take advantage of the growing market opportunities, at home and abroad, for environmentally benign products and pollution abatement and clean technology, and promoting waste minimisation, recovery and recycling. We are already among the leading nations in reclaiming such metals as copper, lead and zinc from scrap, and industry, local authorities, voluntary organisations and the general public are collaborating more and more to boost recovery of post-consumer wastes, such as glass, paper, aluminium and steel cans, and plastic bottles.

  Most recently, my Department has established a new business and environment unit to give even more focus to our initiatives in this important area.

  Balance of Trade (Manufactures)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish a table in the Official Report showing in terms of sterling at specified
  816
  rates of exchange the overall and per capita surplus/deficit on trade in manufactures in 1959, 1967, 1977 and 1988 in the case of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Germany, Japan, France and Italy.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is in the following tables:

  Trade in Manufactured Goods1 Balances

  £ billion

  United Kingdom

  USA

  FR Germany

  Japan

  France

  Italy

  1959

  1·9

  1·1

  1·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·3

  1967

  3·3

  1·6

  3·9

  2·4

  0·5

  1·0

  1977

  3·2

  0·1

  16·8

  22·5

  3·2

  6·1

  1987

  -5·7

  -56·0

  37·5

  58·4

  -1·6

  9·9

  1988

  -11·0

  -49·1

  40·2

  61·3

  -3·5

  8·9

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 5–8.

  Surplus/Deficit Per Capita

  £

  United Kingdom

  USA

  FR Germany

  Japan

  France

  Italy

  1959

  35·7

  6·2

  33·7

  8·7

  20·

  5·9

  1967

  60·3

  8·2

  65·5

  23·6

  10·5

  18·6

  1977

  57·1

  0·5

  27·30

  197·8

  60·2

  108·3

  1987

  -100·7

  -229·8

  612·0

  478·0

  -28·4

  172·8

  1988

  -192·7

  -199·4

  656·9

  499·7

  -63·0

  155·1

  Sources:OECD,UN and IMF.

  National currencies /sterling exchange rates

  USA US dollar

  FR Germany Deutsche Mark

  Japan Yen

  France Franc

  Italy Lire

  1959

  2·80

  11·76

  1,008

  13·82

  1,739

  1967

  2·77

  11·62

  996

  13·66

  1,729

  1977

  1·75

  4·05

  468

  8·57

  1,540

  1987

  1·64

  2·94

  236

  9·84

  2,123

  1988

  1·78

  3·12

  228

  10·60

  2,315

  Source: IMF, CSO.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report for the latest available date the figures for the share of the United Kingdom market taken by imports from the European Economic Community corresponding to ratio 1 in table 10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics"; and if he will provide a forecast in both cases for December 1988 based on the trade returns.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics". It is estimated that, in 1987, 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for manufactured goods was taken by imports from the European Community. These estimates are readily available only on an annual basis, and there are no figures available yet for 1988.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the increase in imports and loss of exports as a result of access to the domestic and overseas markets of British companies acquired by foreign competitors.
  817
  Mr. Redwood
  There are no estimates of the trade effects of acquisitions of British companies by foreign competitors. Such acquisitions can provide important benefits to the economy and also have to be balanced against British company acquisitions of overseas companies.

  United Kingdom top ten exports 1979 to 1988

  Value in £ million

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  33

  Petroleum, petroleum products and related materials

  4,158

  6,133

  9,108

  10,686

  12,501

  14,852

  16,134

  8,208

  8,466

  5,576

  75

  Office machines and automatic data processing machines

  —

  —

  —

  1,600

  2,049

  3,047

  3,747

  3,562

  4,483

  5,297

  78

  Road vehicles (including air cushion vehicles)

  3,148

  3,158

  3,170

  3,109

  3,092

  3,319

  3,911

  3.954

  4,877

  4,992

  77

  Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, n.e.s. and electrical parts thereof

  1,457

  1,799

  1,759

  2,117

  2,292

  2,805

  3,380

  3,383

  3,786

  4,343

  89

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s.

  1,537

  1,730

  1,909

  2,023

  2,393

  2,921

  3,175

  3,539

  4,357

  4,326

  79

  Other transport equipment

  1,802

  2,380

  1,726

  2,034

  2,342

  2,766

  2,737

  3,081

  3,759

  3,965

  71

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  1,789

  2,231

  2,642

  2,809

  2,473

  2,709

  3,061

  3,251

  3,241

  3,885

  74

  General industrial machinery and equipment, n.e.s. and machine parts, n.e.s.

  1,960

  2,317

  2,306

  2,412

  2,334

  2,557

  2,937

  3,037

  3,098

  3,578

  72

  Machinery specialised for particular industries

  2,313

  2,574

  2,558

  2,601

  2,335

  2,677

  3,078

  3,101

  3,300

  3,288

  51

  Organic chemicals

  —

  —

  1,496

  —

  —

  2,382

  2,743

  2,571

  2,831

  3,138

  66

  Non-metallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s.

  3,396

  3,551

  1,538

  1,610

  1,996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, n.e.s. and related products

  1,339

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68

  Non-ferrous metals

  —

  1,771

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. 1988 figures are provisional.

  2. Divisions listed in descending order based on 1988 values.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in output between 1959 and 1973 and 1973 and 1988 in, respectively, electrical engineering and instrument engineering goods together with (i) the percentage increase for the group using, respectively, 1959, 1970, 1975 and 1985 weights and (ii) the increase in import penetration between 1968 and 1977 and 1968 and 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  I regret that an answer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in output between 1959 and 1973 and 1973 and 1988 in, respectively, food, drink and tobacco, paper, printing and publishing, coal and petroleum products, cement, bricks, pottery, glass etc., timber, furniture etc. and other miscellaneous manufacturing together with (i) the percentage increase for the group using, respectively, 1959, 1970, 1975 and 1985 weights and (ii) the increase in import penetration between 1968 and 1977 and 1968 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret that an answer could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
  818
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the top 10 exports in each of the last 10 years; and if he will show the total value of each in each year.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Information on the divisions of the standard international trade classification accounting for the greatest value of exports is given in the following table.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in United Kingdom output between 1959 and 1973 and 1973 and 1988 in, respectively, chemicals, manmade fibres, textiles clothing and footwear and leather, motor vehicles, trains, ships, aircraft etc. and mechanical engineering together with (i) the percentage increase for the whole group using, respectively 1959, 1970, 1975 and 1985 weights and (ii) the increase in import penetration between 1968 and 1977 and 1968 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret that an answer could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring up to date the index on competitiveness given in his answer of 22 October 1979,Official Report, columns 56–60.

  Mr. Redwood
  The current estimates for the indices provided in the previous answer are available in tables D3 and F3 of the "Annual Supplement to the Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library.

  BAT Industries
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer the bid by Hoylake for BAT Industries to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  The bid by Hoylake for BAT is currently under consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will advise my right hon. 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 be inappropriate to comment on this case in advance of the director general's advice.

  Professions (Competence)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria determine that examinations for competence are not considered a restriction to entry into a profession, with potentially undesirable consequences for competition, for dentists, doctors, solicitors, barristers, chartered accountants and stockbrokers, but are for members of FIMBRA who practice as independent financial advisers.

  Mr. Redwood
  FIMBRA has not introduced such a requirement, and so far as I am aware no such proposal has been discussed with the Director General of Fair Trading or his staff. No determination of the possible competitive effect of such a requirement has therefore been made. If such a requirement is introduced, it will in the first instance be for the director general to consider its effects on competition.

  Exhibitions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many exhibitions Ministers from his Department have visited in an official capacity in the last 12 months or other convenient period, both within the United Kingdom and overseas; and if he will give comparable figures for the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Ridley
  Specific records are not kept, but I understand that previous Ministers in my Department visited at least 10 overseas exhibitions in the last 12 months compared with at least four in the previous 12 months. It would be too costly to identify figures of visits to United Kingdom exhibitions.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how he intends to maintain reliable intra-European Community trade statistics post-1992 without adding to the form-filling burdens on business establishments;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the rôle of reliable intra-European Community trade statistics for post-1992 business marketing and investment purposes.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following completion of the single market in 1992, the current source of intra-European Community trade statistics—customs' documentation—will probably disappear. An EC Commission proposal for a revised collection system has been put forward to be considered by EC Ministers later this year. This system 820
  involves collecting trade statistics directly from industry. However, with the elimination of customs' documentation and formalities, importers and exporters within the Community will benefit from a major reduction in costs and overall form-filling burden.

  The Government's aim is to ensure that any new statistical system achieves a reasonable balance between the burdens imposed on those who have to provide statistics and the needs of Government and industry for reliable figures.

  In order to assess these two aspects of any new system, a consultation exercise has recently been undertaken to obtain the views of industry. Individual businesses, trade associations and freight forwarders have all been included in the consultation. The results of this exercise are currently being assessed and will be used to help decide the United Kingdom's negotiating position in discussion on the new collective system.

  More information about the proposed new statistical system and details of the consultation exercise were included in an article in British Business on 19 May 1989.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ensure that any changes in multi-fibre arrangement quotas within the member states, consequent upon the fulfilment of the single European market, post 1992, will not add further to import penetration of textiles, knitted and clothing products in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The present extension of the multi-fibre arrangement expires in 1991. Its future is a matter for negotiation in the current Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiatons.

  It is the Commission's general view that the maintenance of indiviudal member state quotas will be inconsistent with the completion of the single market after 1992. How far this might extend to the treatment of textiles and clothing and, in that event, the likely implications for trade flows have yet to be discussed. Current arrangements in the Community's bilateral textile agreements already provide however for automatic transfer or quotas between member states up to a certain percentage which increases annually.

  Anti-dumping Rules
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to seek immediately a change in the European Community's application of the anti-dumping rules so that given a prima facie case of dumping a provisional duty could be introduced, with the required onus of proof, thereafter, being placed on the supplying country.

  Mr. Redwood
  The GATT anti-dumping code to which the EC is a party permits provisional anti-dumping duties only when a preliminary finding of dumping has been made and there is sufficient evidence of injury. However, the provisions of the code are under review in the current Uruguay round negotiations.

  Socks
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the increase in the level of sock imports from Indonesia(a) between 1987

  821
  and 1988 and (b) between 1 January and 30 April 1989; and if he intends to support the introduction of the multi-fibre arrangement quota on socks originating in Indonesia.

  Mr. Redwood
  Imports from Indonesia of socks and certain other hosiery products covered by multi-fibre arrangement category 12 rose from 2,365,000 pairs in 1987 to 10,767,000 pairs in 1988, an increase of 355 per cent. In the first four months of 1989, 3,276,000 pairs of these products were imported, compared with 1,095,000 pairs in the same period in 1988, an increase of 199 per cent. These imports accounted for 4·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for category 12 products in the first quarter of 1989, compared with 1·5 per cent. in the same period in 1988.

  My Department is currently considering a request from the Knitting Industries Federation for restraint action against these imports under the terms of the EC-Indonesia bilateral textiles agreement. United Kingdom producers currently hold almost 70 per cent. of a domestic market which has been growing and I will need to take this and other factors into account when assessing their case. In particular, it will be necessary to demonstrate clearly that the imports from Indonesia are causing or threatening to cause disruption to the United Kingdom market before a decision could be taken to submit the case to the EC Commission for consideration by the Community.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the level of sock imports from Turkey(a) between 1987 and 1988 and (b) in the first four months of 1989; and if he intends to invoke the safeguard mechanism in the European Community-Turkey agreement in this respect.

  Mr. Redwood
  Imports from Turkey of socks and certain other hosiery products falling within multi-fibre arrangement category 12 rose from 6,775,000 pairs in 1987 to 13,692,000 pairs in 1988, an increase of 102 per cent. In the first four months of 1989, 3,542,000 pairs were imported, compared with 2,544,000 pairs in the same period in 1988 an increase of 39·2 per cent. These imports accounted for 4·8 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for category 12 products in the first quarter of 1989, compared with 3·4 per cent. in the same period in 1988.

  In order to invoke the safeguard mechanism of the EC-Turkey association agreement, it is necessary to provide evidence to the EC Commission and Council which clearly demonstrates serious injury as a result of imports from Turkey. Such evidence is not available at present. However following representations from the Knitting Industries Federation, officials are monitoring the situation closely.

  Certain categories of knitwear and clothing imports from Turkey are covered by informal voluntary restraint arrangements agreed between Turkish garment exporters associations and the EC Commission. The United Kingdom has already taken the opportunity of consultations within the framework of these arrangements to ensure that the EC Commission raised our concerns about sock imports with the Turks. Consultations will continue in September.

  Philippines
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the volume and value of trade in fruit between the Philippines and the United Kingdom; and what tariff or other conditions apply to this trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The United Kingdom imported 15,300 metric tonnes (£6·6 million) of fruit from the Philippines in 1988. There were no exports.

  Full details of specific customs duties are given in the integrated tariff of the United Kingdom, chapters 8 arid 20, a copy of which is available in the Library. Imports of prepared or preserved pineapples comprise some two thirds of fruit imports from the Philippines; these receive a general scheme of preferences concession on the normal full tariff rate.

  There are plant health standards that have to be met by certain fresh fruit imports.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the principal trading goods and commodities between the United Kingdom and the Philippines.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The principal traded goods have been defined in terms of divisions of the standard international trade classification. The information is given in the following tables:

  United Kingdom imports from the Philippines in 1988

  Division

  Value £ million

  24 Cork and wood

  45·3

  77 Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances and electrical parts thereof

  40·6

  63 Cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture)

  35·9

  84 Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  32·9

  05 Vegetables and fruit

  10·7

  89 Miscellaneous manufactured articles nes

  7·7

  82 Furniture and parts thereof (including bedding)

  7·3

  03 Fish (not marine mammals, crustaceans, molluscs etc and preparations thereof

  5·1

  29 Crude animal and vegetable materials nes

  4·7

  26 Textile fibres and their wastes (not manufactured into yarn or fabric)

  4·7

  Scottish Trade Missions
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total amount spent by his Department in each year since 1979 on assisting Scottish trade missions; and if he will provide comparable information in respect of each planning region of England.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The table is based on readily available information. Although the costs are shown by organising sponsors located in the areas specified, it is important to note that participation in a mission is on a United Kingdom-wide basis and that consequently all companies are eligible for consideration irrespective of their or a sponsor's location.

  Outward Mission Payments: Financial Year

  £'000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total of which:

  1,446

  1,395

  1,301

  1,278

  Scotland

  175

  125

  129

  151

  823

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South East

  600

  564

  585

  524

  West Midlands

  211

  239

  140

  183

  East Midlands

  57

  89

  62

  77

  Northern

  74

  81

  68

  70

  North West

  99

  84

  67

  70

  Yorks and Humberside

  119

  126

  152

  120

  South West

  54

  34

  46

  53

  Wales

  47

  46

  36

  26

  Northern Ireland

  10

  7

  16

  4

  Electrical Installations
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for the last 20 years how many deaths and serious accidents are attributable to faulty electrical installations.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The information is not available either in the form requested or for the whole of the last 20 years.

  Fatal and non-fatal casualties from fires in dwellings due to faults in electical appliances:

  Fatal

  Non-Fatal

  Year

  Fault in mains circuit

  Fault in appliance

  Fault in mains circuit

  Fault in appliance

  1978

  11

  37

  133

  379

  1979

  13

  52

  143

  485

  1980

  6

  38

  108

  407

  1981

  11

  41

  109

  459

  1982

  8

  33

  108

  443

  1983

  26

  42

  148

  498

  1984

  15

  33

  183

  502

  1985

  9

  40

  175

  620

  1986

  11

  38

  178

  600

  1987

  10

  23

  180

  571

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics.

  Electrocutions: Fatal home accidents involving electrical products in England and Wales

  Year

  Fault in mains circuit

  Fault in appliances

  1979

  4

  23

  1980

  4

  17

  1981

  4

  15

  1982

  1

  32

  1983

  8

  28

  1984

  2

  14

  1985

  3

  20

  Source: HADD

  HASS: Electric current accidents, Hospital admissions

  Year

  Number

  1980

  11

  1981

  15

  1982

  19

  1983

  12

  1984

  12

  1985

  14

  1986

  12

  1987

  9

  Source: HASS

  Mergers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer the proposed merger between Hodgson Holdings undertakers and Kenyon Securities undertakers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The proposed merger between Hodgson Holdings and Kenyon Securities is currently under consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading who will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the normal way on whether the proposed merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would be inappropriate to comment in detail on the case in advance of the director general's advice.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is his estimate of the percentage United Kingdom content of United Kingdom exports in 1959, 1970, 1979 and 1988 or the latest available date of finished manufactures less erratics made in the United Kingdom, taking into account the increase in imports of basic materials, semi-manufactures and intermediate finished manufactures;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the percentage United Kingdom content in 1959, 1970 and 1988 of United Kingdom exports of, respectively, motor cars, commercial vehicles, clothing, textiles, mechanical engineering products and electrical engineering products, taking into account the increase in imports of materials and components used in each of these industries and assuming that the import content of exports is the same as that for the sector as a whole.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library.

  North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any meetings took place or written correspondence was exchanged between his Department and the European Commission relating to the sale of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. between 17 April and the date of the meeting between the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and Sir Leon Brittan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A full account of exchanges between my Department and the European Commission is contained in the note that my right hon. Friend has recently placed in the Library.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould),Official Report, 13 July, column 1151, whether it was his Department or British Shipbuilders who informed the bidders for NESL of the anticipated difficulties with the European Commission; and whether this advice was provided in writing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Advice was given orally by my officials.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on which date the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) met Sir Leon Brittan to discuss the sale of North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
  825
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend met Sir Leon Brittan to discuss this matter on 27 June 1989.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date his Department was first made aware of a renewed interest in the purchase of North East Shipbuilders Ltd by the Egon Oldendorff line of West Germany.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British Shipbuilders informed my Department on 13 April that an approach it had received from a further interest in North East Shipbuilders Ltd would be confirmed in writing that day.

  Balance of Trade (Manufactures)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, further to his reply of 30 November,Official Report, column 251, showing the balance of trade in manufactures in terms of 1988 prices, he will provide the outturn figure for 1988 and that for the first five months of 1989 together with the figures for each year in current prices; and if he will provide the corresponding figures for trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The figures for manufactures, excluding erratics, for 1988 and 1989 to date at 1988 prices are:

  Manufactures less erratics (BOP basis) at 1988 prices

  £ billion

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance

  1988

  59·3

  74·8

  -15·6

  11989

  62·5

  82·7

  -20·2

  1 The figures for 1989 are for January to May 1989 at an annualised rate.

  Figures for earlier years at current prices are shown in the following table:

  Table 2

  Manufactures less erratics (BOP basis) at current prices

  £ billion

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance

  1970

  6·3

  3·7

  +2·6

  1971

  7·1

  4·0

  +3·2

  1972

  7·2

  4·9

  +2·3

  1973

  9·0

  7·2

  +1·7

  1974

  12·2

  10·0

  +2·2

  1975

  14·6

  10·2

  +4·4

  1976

  18·8

  13·7

  +5·1

  1977

  23·3

  17·0

  +6·4

  1978

  25·5

  20·4

  +5·1

  1979

  28·1

  25·4

  +4·2

  1980

  3l·0

  25·1

  +1·3

  1981

  31·8

  27·6

  +4·2

  1982

  33·9

  32·6

  +1·3

  1983

  35·7

  39·2

  -3·5

  1984

  41·9

  47·0

  -5·1

  1985

  48·0

  51·9

  -3·9

  1986

  49·1

  56·5

  -7·4

  1987

  54·7

  64·3

  -9·6

  Estimates for trade in manufactures with the European Community are available only at current prices, and including the erratic items.
  826

  Table 3

  United Kingdom trade with the EC Manufactures including erratics (BOP basis) at current prices

  £ billion

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance

  1970

  2·2

  1·5

  +0·6

  1971

  2·3

  1·8

  +0·4

  1972

  2·5

  2·5

  —

  1973

  3·3

  5·7

  -0·4

  1974

  4·7

  5·2

  -0·5

  1975

  5·1

  5·7

  -0·6

  1976

  7·2

  7·7

  -0·5

  1977

  9·3

  9·8

  -0·5

  1978

  10·2

  12·0

  -1·7

  1979

  12·16

  15·2

  -2·6

  1980

  14·0

  15·2

  -1·2

  1981

  13·2

  15·9

  -2·6

  1982

  14·6

  18·9

  -4·3

  1983

  15·9

  23·1

  -7·2

  1984

  18·8

  27·0

  -8·1

  1985

  21·8

  30·5

  -8·7

  1986

  23·9

  34·0

  -10·1

  1987

  28·0

  38·4

  -10·4

  1988

  31·5

  44·0

  -12·6

  British Tourists
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in giving protection to British tourists travelling abroad by making tour operators responsible to British courts for statements made in their brochures.

  Mr. Forth
  Negotiations on a draft EC directive on package travel continue. Meanwhile, the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) has recently revised its code of conduct for tour operators in consultation with the Office of Fair Trading.

  I welcome the new code. I believe that consumers will benefit in particular from the clear statement of their responsibilities which tour operators will now be required to provide in their brochures and booking conditions.

  Salmon Farm, Sian Bay
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the advice that the Nature Conservancy Council submitted on the recent granting of a sea-bed lease for the purpose of salmon farming at Sian bay, Sutherland; whether the applicant submitted an assessment of the likely environmental impact of the salmon farm; and if he will publish the names of all those conservation or environmental organisations which objected to the proposal.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 20 July 1989.]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Crown Estate does not publish submissions made on applications for sea-bed leases. Such submissions may, of course, be obtained from the parties concerned. The scale of the development at Sian bay was below the level requiring an environmental impact assessment. Submissions were received from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  Liverpool Freeport
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether city grants will continue to be made available for the next stage of the Liverpool Freeport park development.

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

  The availability of the Government funding will depend upon whether the proposed development can satisfy all the criteria of city grant and in particular whether the project offers good value for money.

TRANSPORT

  40-tonne Lorries
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bridges on the A1 trunk route are unable to carry 40-tonne lorries.

  Mr. Atkins
  In November 1987 we announced a programme of assessment and strengthening of bridges on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads to ensure that they can carry modern heavy lorries. This programme is continuing. It is too early to say how many, if any, of the bridges on the A1 require strengthening.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has given any indication in the European Community Council of Ministers that the United Kingdom will move towards 40-tonne lorries on its roads before 31 December 1998 if it becomes practicable to do so.

  Mr. Atkins
  Last month the EC Transport Council agreed 31 December 1998 as the date when the deregulations from EC road vehicle weights will end. We undertook to use our best endeavours to advance this date as far as practicable. We have suggested that an addendum reflecting these statements at the Council meeting be made to the minutes of the meeting.

  Clapham Train Accident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration the railway inspectorate has given to the possible implication of the Clapham train disaster that a large number of people standing could result in more casualties, when considering London Underground Ltd's specification for new rolling stock involving fewer seats and more standing space per train; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The railway inspectorate has considered the relevant evidence given to the formal investigation into the railway accident at Clapham junction. This indicates little significant difference in the type of severity of injuries received by passengers in a severe railway accident, whether they are sitting or standing. However, some lessons have been learned regarding the interior design of railway rolling stock. These will be borne in mind when considering the specification for London Underground Ltd's new rolling stock and before that stock obtains formal approval.

  Airport Capacity, South-East
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the letter dated 14 July from the Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups about airport and runway capacity in the south-east is carefully considered; and if he will make appropriate arrangements to establish reliable forecasts for future air passenger demand and for the size of aircraft that will be in the airline fleets to meet that demand.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The federation's letter will of course be given careful attention. A copy is being passed to the Civil Aviation Authority, who will be advising my right hon. Friend next summer on strategic options for meeting demand at United Kingdom airports in the long term. My Department last published air traffic forecasts in December, and will be updating these in due course. The authority will be concerned with average passenger loads in carrying forward its present commission.

  Buses (Wheelchair Access)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many buses currently in operation on London Regional Transport routes are accessible to wheelchair users.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport has 45 buses which operate scheduled services and are accessible to users of wheelchairs. Additionally, London Regional Transport funds the London Dial-a-Ride service which operates 141 wheelchair accessible buses, providing door-to-door services.

  Underground Stations (Exits)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London Underground stations have only one public exit from the platforms to the street; and what proposals he has discussed with London Underground Ltd. to provide these stations with secondary exiting.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are 118 stations with only one exit at street level, of which 29 are deep-level stations. In pursuit of recommendation 124 of the Fennell report, London Underground Ltd. has embarked on a programme of surveying stations with disused lift-shafts and passageways, to identify possible secondary exits and to establish the cost of conversion.

  Routemaster Buses
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Routemaster buses have been sold by London Buses Ltd(a) to other operators within the United Kingdom, (b) for scrap and (c) to foreign owners.

  Mr. Portillo
  The disposal of surplus vehicles is a matter for London Buses Ltd.

  Harbours (ERDF Funding)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, in respect of each county in England and Wales, those harbour projects which have been funded or part-funded by the European Community regional development fund during the period April 1979 to March 1989; and if he will state the level of funding in each case.
  829
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, hopefully within a few days.

  Bus Deregulation, London
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable he now envisages for the deregulation of bus services in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  No decisions have yet been taken on the timetable for deregulation of bus services in London, but it is our stated aim to achieve this by the early 1990s.

  East London Rail Study
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will publish the east London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 26 July.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to oblige local authorities to recover their costs plus a margin for profit from suppliers of services seeking road closures and to charge a full rent at a rising daily rate in all cases of roadworks for the installation, repair and renewal of such services based on the amount of traffic diverted or inconvenienced and the duration of the work.

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposals for legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 were circulated in May to interested parties for comment. A copy of these proposals is in the Library. The proposals included a provision to enable highway authorities to recover from utilities certain of their costs such as those incurred by making temporary traffic orders. A provision to oblige highway authorities to charge rent for roadworks was not included. We have received several responses putting forward suggestions aimed at reducing the impact of utilities' works on road users, including charging for the road space occupied by those works. We are considering the responses to consultation.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that those dockers formerly employed at Denton's Wharf and G. E. Grays, but who were on the temporary unattached register at the abolition of the dock labour scheme, are paid full compensation for redundancy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The liability for paying the compensation due to the former registered dock workers employed by Denton's Wharf Limited and G. E. Gray and Son (Shipping) Limited rests with those companies. The Department has explained the position to them and has repeatedly urged them to resolve the matter quickly. I understand that Denton's Wharf Limited has accepted its liability and will he taking steps to pay the compensation shortly, but that G. E. Gray and Son (Shipping) Limited 830
  is still awaiting legal advice. Under the terms of the statutory compensation scheme, the Department can pay the full amount of compensation due to redundant former registered dock workers only in cases where a company has become insolvent.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on road hump regulations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department consulted over 125 bodies on proposals for revised road hump regulations and over 50 responded. The consultation was in two parts. On relaxation of criteria currently set in the regulations, the response was almost uniformly favourable. On the wider relaxation encompassing proposals for the introduction of sub-30 mph speed limits, again responses were generally favourable.

  We are now proceeding towards making new regulations which will implement all the new proposals. A number of points of detail were raised and we shall be dealing with these in new advice for local highway authorities.

  The new regulations are a further step forward in civilising the motor car and in giving local authorities greater freedom of action.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to carry out research into the practicality of fitting seat belts on school buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: We are satisfied that it is practicable to fit seat belts in coaches and minibuses, although they would not be justified in city buses.

  It is our firm belief, on the basis of all the accident experience, that seat belts can make a major contribution to the survival of accidents in most types of motor vehicle, including coaches and minibuses.

  We regard it as one of our priorities, as we work towards a single set of safety requirements for Europe after 1992, that good quality, easy-to-use retractable seat belts should be fitted to all the seats in coaches and minibuses, and that they should be worn. We are taking every opportunity to press the European Commission, the member states and the bus industry on this point.

  M25
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the review of the M25 referred to in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" will be published.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The M25 review is being published today. The consultants, Rendel Palmer and Tritton, have produced a range of recommendations which will need careful study. The proposal to widen the motorway to dual four lanes has already been announced in the recent roads White Paper. We shall need to weigh up the traffic and environmental implications of their recommendations with care. We shall consult widely, and shall announce further plans for action later this year. The consultants' views do not necessarily represent Government policy.

  I am placing copies in the House Libraries.

  A1
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current works of repair to the A1 between London and Dishforth, the dates works started and the expected completion dates.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following major maintenance works are in progress on the A1 between London and Dishforth.

  Location

  Works

  Start date

  Expected duration

  Cambridgeshire Wothorpe

  Bridge repairs

  17 July

  9 weeks

  Lincolnshire Cromwell to Muskham

  Carriageway repairs

  5 June

  19 weeks

  Foston

  Carriageway and bridge repairs

  18 July

  13 weeks

  South Yorkshire A1(M)/ M18 interchange northwards for 1·5 miles

  Carriageway repairs

  28 June

  23 weeks

  West Yorkshire Leeds, A64 junction northwards for 1·5 miles

  Carriageway

  19 July

  3 weeks

  Motorways
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the motorways in England which are two lanes each way and for which widening plans have not been announced.

  Mr. Atkins
  No widening plans have been announced for the following sections of dual two-lane trunk motorway:

  Motorway

  Length (miles)

  M2

  Junctions 3–7

  21·0

  M3

  Junction 8–A33

  12·5

  M4

  Junction 1-Boston Manor

  3·0

  M10

  Junction 1–M1

  3·0

  M18

  Junctions 2–5

  11·0

  M20

  Junctions 12–13

  1·0

  M23

  Gatwick link

  0·8

  M26

  9·0

  M27

  Spurs to A36 (Junction 2) and A33 (Junction 4)

  3·5

  M41

  10·8

  M42

  Junctions 9–11

  13·0

  M45

  8·0

  M50

  21·0

  M54

  M6-Junction 5 and Junction 6–A5

  17·0

  M56

  Junction 3/J4–M63

  1·0

  M58

  Switch Island-Junction 1

  2·0

  M65

  Junctions 8–9

  2·0

  M66

  Edenfield-Junction 2

  6·0

  M180

  Junctions 3–4

  7·0

  M181

  M180–A18

  2·5

  M271

  A3057-Southampton

  2·0

  M606

  M62-Bradford

  3·0

  M621

  Gildersome-Leeds

  15·0

  A1(M)

  Darlington-Sunderland

  234·0

  A1(M)

  Darlington Bypass

  15·5

  A1(M)

  Doncaster Bypass

  15·5

  A3(M)

  Bedhampton-Homedean

  5·0

  A40(M)

  Wood Lane-Bramley Road and Paddington slip roads-Marylebone Flyover

  2·0

  A66(M)

  A1–A66

  2·5

  A102(M)

  Blackwall Tunnel-Rochester Way relief road

  1·3

  A308(M)

  M4 Junction 9–A4 West of Maidenhead

  0·6

  A423(M)

  M4 Junction 9–A308 South of Maidenhead

  4·0

  A627(M)

  4·0

  Total

  231·5

  832
  1Denotes dual 2-lane motorway with short stretches of dual 3-lanes or climbing lanes.

  2 "Roads for Prosperity" (Cm. 693) announced a study into the capacity of this section of the A1(M).

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his current plans for widening the M2; and what are the statistical bases for his decision to not yet announce plans to make it a three-lane each way motorway for its full length.

  Mr. Atkins
  A scheme for widening the M2 to dual three-lanes between junctions 1 and 3 is programmed. Subject to detailed investigation, it might also provide for the third southbound lane to continue some way beyond junction 3 as a crawler lane.

  Taking account of a transfer of Channel-bound traffic to the M20 on its completion, the forecast traffic flows do not justify widening the remainder of M2. The position will be kept under review.

  Rail Accident, Temple Mills
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the railway accident involving a train carrying nuclear material at Temple Mills on the evening of 18 May; what steps he is taking to avoid its reccurrence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A locomotive hauling a wagon which contained a nuclear flask overturned after the driver had passed a shunting signal which was showing no aspect. The signal should have been showing a red (danger) aspect but its light bulb had been damaged by vandals. The incident occurred at a low speed and the wagon holding the nuclear material was not derailed. Health physicists from the CEGB Bradwell nuclear power station examined the flask and confirmed that there had been no leakage and no contamination. British Rail has investigated the incident, established the cause and has taken appropriate steps.

  The incidence of vandalsim is to be deplored. I understand that there was no previous record of malicious damage to the signal in question which controlled the passage of trains within a siding. If a signal on a running line is damaged to the extent that it shows no aspect, it is detected and the previous signal would automatically revert to danger. British Rail is fully aware of the need to safeguard against such interference but it cannot totally prevent trespass.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what criteria he selected land to replace land lost in Leyton at the Eastway sports centre due to the proposed M11 link road; what assessment he made of the benefits for Leyton residents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend is required to apply the same criteria in all cases when selecting exchange land for public open space proposed to be taken for trunk road schemes. The land must generally be not less in area than the open space to be acquired and it must be equally advantageous to the public. Lee Valley regional park authority has accepted the exchange land offered as a suitable replacement for Eastway sports centre. The centre provides facilities for the public from a wide area well beyond the immediate locality of Leyton and Hackney. The area of land to be taken is relatively small and in our
  833
  view will result in no significant loss of amenity for users of the centre. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been consulted about the suitability of the exchange land and is considering whether to issue a notice of intention to grant a certificate under section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. If he does, the notice will invite interested persons to make objections to, or representations about, the proposals. Any unresolved objection would be likely to be heard at the public local inquiry into the draft compulsory purchase order for the road scheme arranged to start in Leyton on 12 September.

  Bus Doors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responses his Department has received to his draft regulations which include provisions relating to the risk of people being trapped in power-operated bus doors; whether he proposes to improve the regulation or provide additional funds for more widespread application of the safe centre exit door mechanism on buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There was general support for the measures proposed for centre exit doors. A number of consultees wished to see the measures applied to buses already in service. We shall be consulting the bus industry further on that point. We aim to make the regulations in the autumn.

  M2 (Maintenance Work)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lane closures have been imposed on the M2 motorway as a result of maintenance work between May and September in each of the past 10 years.

  Parliamentary Session

  Total

  Negative

  Affirmative

  1Others-printed

  2Local-not primed

  1984–85 (November 1984 to October 1985)

  659

  61

  9

  125

  464

  1985–86 (November 1985 to November 1986)

  735

  134

  18

  122

  479

  1986–87 (November 1986 to May 1987)

  435

  45

  3

  62

  325

  1987–88 (June 1987 to November 1988)

  1,174

  113

  11

  191

  859

  1988–89 (uncompleted November 1988 to June 1989)

  485

  63

  10

  92

  320

  1 Mainly commencement orders, trunk road orders and light railway orders.

  2 Mainly road traffic regulation orders.

  Underground Train Safety
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations cover the evacuation of driver-only underground trains should a fire break out while it is in a tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no statutory regulations. The matter is one for the railway operator. Every effort is made to design underground rolling stock so that the risk of fire breaking out is minimised or, if fire does occur, that it will not disable the train. In the event of a fire the driver's first responsibility is to get the train to the nearest station and inform the line controller by radio. No passenger has been injured by a fire on a train within the period 1984 to date. I understand from London Underground Ltd. that a programme to remove inflamable material from rolling stock has begun.
  834
  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not readily available in the form or for the period requested.

  The incidence of lane closures—affecting both carriagways of the motorways of the motorway and involving contraflow working—for major maintenance work between May and September in each of the last three years was as follows:

  Year

  Length (junction to junction)

  From

  To

  1989

  3–4

  1 May

  Present

  5–6

  19 June

  Present

  1988

  5–6

  1 May

  30 September

  5–7

  9 May

  2 July

  1987

  5–7

  9 June

  30 September

  In addition there were periods when lanes were closed for minor repairs such as barrier repairs and patching. The majority of these occurred in off-peak periods between 09.30 and 16.00 hours.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of Department of Transport statutory instruments made in each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the 1988–1989 Session. is:

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department spent £121,014 in 1988–89 on the full range of official hospitality.

  Car Sales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the number and value of new cars leased or sold in the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989 to date together with his estimate of the proportion (i) imported and (ii) paid for directly as a business expense; and what proportion of the real cost of owning a comparable car is now added to the income of employees for tax purposes.
  835
  Mr. Atkins
  From January 1988 to the end of June 1989, 3·5 million new cars were registered in the United Kingdom. Of those registered in Great Britain, 54 per cent. were imported and 52 per cent. were registered in the name of a company.

  The benefit of a company car provided for a director or employee earning £8,500 a year or more is taxed by reference to a set of scale charges. Both the scale charge applicable to a particular company car and the cost of owning a comparable car depend on a number of factors. The proportion of the cost of private ownership represented by the scale charge will therefore vary from case to case.

  Information on the value of these cars is not available.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Crack
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, South, 29 June,Official Report, column 535, if he will explain the reasons which led to the conclusion that it would be counterproductive to reveal the inner-city areas targeted by drugs education co-ordinators in their campaign to persuade teenagers to say no to crack.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government believe that the threat of crack is best tackled locally, since the nature and scale of the problem, and hence the most suitable response, will vary from place to place. Drugs education co-ordinators and their colleagues in local youth, community and voluntary organisations are well placed to assess actual or potential problems in their areas and initiate responses. We have made clear to local agencies our readiness to provide appropriate support for their initiatives.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As a first step in its review, the Department has considered what work could be relocated from London and the south-east to the existing office in Darlington. Thirty posts were transferred in 1988; a further 50 posts will be transferred in 1990 and will be filled mainly by locally recruited staff. A scrutiny will be mounted later this year to consider a longer-term strategy.

  I expect the results to be available by mid-1990.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the replacement circular for DES circular 1/83 on special educational needs.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the new circular in the foreseeable future.

  Schools (Meals and Transport)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1978–79 public expenditure on (i) school meals and (ii) school transport in cash and in real terms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows:

  Expenditure1 on school meals and home to institution transport 1978–79 to 1987–88—England

  £ million

  School meals

  Transport

  Cash

  Real terms2

  Cash

  Real terms

  1978–79

  388

  793

  117

  239

  1979–80

  422

  740

  136

  238

  1980–81

  397

  587

  160

  237

  1981–82

  397

  535

  174

  234

  1982–83

  411

  517

  184

  232

  1983–84

  427

  513

  195

  234

  1984–85

  432

  495

  199

  228

  1985–86

  435

  472

  208

  226

  1986–87

  459

  483

  215

  226

  1987–88

  443

  443

  222

  222

  1 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment.

  2 The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced to 1987–88 prices using the Gross Domestic Products (Market Prices) Deflator.

  Note: The figures in the table are all net of income received from pupils and adults who pay for their meals or their transport.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Details of statutory instruments subject to parliamentary control made by the Secretary of State during the last five Sessions, are as follows:

  Year

  Total

  Negative Instruments

  Affirmative Instruments

  1988–89

  52

  50

  2

  1987–88

  33

  30

  3

  1986–87

  22

  20

  2

  1985–86

  17

  13

  4

  1984–85

  12

  10

  2

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools, Deptford
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider public representations on an application for leave under section 14 of the Education Act 1944: if he will postpone a decision on the application being made by the governors of the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham schools in Deptford until after the school holidays, so as to allow parents and the governors of neighbouring schools sufficient opportunity to make representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State, set out the factors he would take into
  837
  account in considering an application for leave under section 14 of the Education Act 1944 in his answer of 23 January 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, (Mr. Dunn) Official Report column 383. Plainly, these will include the views of governors, parents, and others. My right hon. Friend will take a decision as soon as he is in a position to do so.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in deciding whether to grant leave to the governors of Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham girls school, Deptford, to discontinue the school for the purpose of establishing a city technology college he will take into consideration the no vote by a majority of parents to the question, "Do you wish the school to become one of a pair of city technology colleges?"

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State, set out the factors we would take into account in deciding such an approach by the governors of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in his statement of 23 January 1989 at column 307. These will include such views as were expressed to the governors during the public consultations they undertook before they made this approach.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the event of city technology colleges being established on the site of the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham schools in Deptford, what requirements he will place on the admission policy and catchment area of these city technology colleges to ensure that they benefit children drawn from the north Lewisham and the Deptford task force areas in particular; and how the catchment area for the city technology schools will relate to that of the proposed Bacons city technology college in docklands.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As we shall shortly be considering this approach by the governors of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools under the provisions of section 14 of the Education Act 1944, it would be inappropriate to comment on these questions of detail in advance of that decision. The catchment area of each city technology college is subject to a specific agreement between the sponsors and my right hon. Friend; and we have always made it clear that each will focus on disadvantaged areas.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds are available for the training of teachers in the new national curriculum; what are his plans to help already trained teachers with in-house training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Specific grants are available for additional expenditure by local education authorities to support the introduction of the national curriculum, including in-service training for teachers. These will support £100 million expenditure in 1989–90. We have allowed schools two extra closure days for training, and the National Curriculum Council has provided advice and training materials.

  County Councils
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what limit he intends to impose on county council spending on capital projects in the public sector; and if he has any plans to allow the county councils to spend their own money, above the capital allocation approved by the government, for the refurbishment and maintenance of ageing school buildings.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Local Government and Housing Bill which is currently before the House provides for a new system for the control of local authority capital finance. Under that system, which we propose to introduce in 1990–91, the Government will not control an authority's spending on capital projects but it will limit the level of such spending which can be financed by borrowing or the use of other credit arrangements. Authorities will he free to incur additional capital spending which might be financed from revenue or by the use of the permitted proportion of capital receipts. Decisions about the appropriate level of credit approvals for 1990–91 and future years will he announced in the autumn.

  Higher Education (Grants)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase capital grant for higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Decisions on the level of public provision for the education service, including provision for higher education capital, will be taken during the current public expenditure survey round.

  Academic Pay
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what proposals he has under consideration to enhance academic pay in higher education to achieve closer parity with recent graduates and postgraduates working in comparable non-academic professions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has under consideration for increased levels of pay for research in higher education. and for similar enhancement of postgraduate awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is not at present considering any such proposals in respect of pay: a settlement has recently been made, with his agreement, for salaries of academic and related staff in the universities, including those engaged in research. The employers are negotiating salaries with representatives of the lecturers. In the Government's view, salaries should be set so as to recruit, retain and motivate the staff concerned.

  The levels of postgraduate studentships are determined by the award-making bodies, in consultation as appropriate with the Department and amongst themselves, in the light of all the relevant factors, including the number and quality of applications for support and other claims on their resources for training and research funding. My right hon. Friend has, however, recieved advice on this and other matters from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. This is being published today.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what agreements have been entered into, and what draft proposals for agreement are in existence, between him and any promoters of any city technology college, under(a) section 105 of the Education Reform Act and (b) any other relevant provision; what are the main elements of those agreements; and if he will deposit copies in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has entered into a number of preliminary agreements with individual CTC sponsors to purchase land or buildings for CTC development and to incur transitional costs to be met before CTCs open. These are confidential to each project. All CTCs will be subject to a detailed funding agreement made under section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988. This will cover capital and recurrent expenditure and set out the terms and conditions on which grant will be paid. A model which forms the basis of such agreements is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has available to his Department as to the salaries of teachers and head teachers in city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Our recurrent grant to 'city technology colleges is based on an average of expenditure by local education authorities on secondary schools in similar areas. This includes expenditure on the salaries of teachers and headteachers. The precise level of staff salaries in CTCs is a matter for their boards of governors.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the expenditure per pupil on(a) books, (b) computers and allied equipment, (c) other equipment, (d) head teachers' salaries and (e) teachers' salaries in respect of (i) pupils in city technology colleges and (ii) pupils in maintained schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest available data on outturn recurrent expenditure in maintained secondary schools are set out in the table. Comparable data for city technology colleges are not yet available.

  1988–89

  Grants to universities and colleges, etc.

  For Recurrent Grants

  General Purposes

  Overseas Research Student Awards Scheme

  Redundancy

  Total Subhead C1

  Computers Subhead D2

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Aston University

  19,296

  32

  625

  19,953

  244

  Bath University

  17,911

  53

  992

  18,956

  788

  Birmingham University

  45,925

  91

  1,281

  47,297

  427

  Bradford University

  18,185

  14

  612

  18,811

  260

  Bristol University

  37,871

  59

  1,208

  39,138

  295

  Brunel University

  15,947

  2

  679

  16,628

  176

  Cambridge University

  53,482

  1,189

  0

  54,671

  533

  City University

  15,085

  18

  1,570

  16,673

  109

  Durham University

  20,788

  38

  732

  21,558

  87

  East Anglia University

  17,515

  26

  2,118

  19,659

  174

  Essex University

  10,817

  41

  469

  11,327

  195

  Exeter University

  19,469

  18

  1,088

  20,575

  126

  Hull University

  18,344

  12

  1,339

  19,695

  243

  840

  Average Expenditure1 per Pupil in Maintained Secondary Schools

  England 1987–88

  £

  Text and library books

  15

  Educational equipment2

  47

  Teacher salaries3

  1,075

  1 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment and pupil number returns to the DES. They are given in cash terms.

  2 A breakdown of expenditure on different types of educational equipment is not available.

  3 A breakdown of expenditure between head teachers' salaries and other teachers' salaries is not available. The teacher salaries figure given in the table includes the salaries of head teachers.

  Examinations
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider setting a minimum required amount of coursework or attendance before a school pupil is allowed to sit a public examination.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for individual schools to enter their pupils as candidates for public examinations. In doing so, they must naturally have regard to pupils' fitness to sit the examination, including such matters as the courses they are undertaking and the standards they have attained.

  Advisory Board for the Research Councils
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in relation to the public expenditure survey for 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The advice is being published today and copies are available in the Library. I would like to express my appreciation to Sir David Phillips and the board for the work which has gone into its preparation. I shall be considering the advice in the normal way during the 1989 public expenditure survey discussions.

  Universities (Grants)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list the grants made available to universities in Great Britain in the financial year 1988–89, on the advice of the University Grants Committee and the computer board.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:
  841

  For Recurrent Grants

  General Purposes

  Overseas Research Student Awards Scheme

  Redundancy

  Total Subhead C1

  Computers Subhead D2

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Keele University

  10,013

  14

  1,954

  11,981

  181

  Kent University

  14,299

  10

  188

  14,497

  216

  Lancaster University

  17,062

  28

  729

  17,819

  174

  Leeds University

  50,450

  211

  1,490

  52,151

  417

  Leicester University

  22,704

  19

  412

  23,135

  172

  Liverpool

  45,161

  55

  1,249

  46,465

  328

  London Business School

  2,070

  3

  4

  2,077

  17

  London University including its College and Schools

  299,383

  969

  21,087

  321,439

  6,580

  Loughborough University of Technology

  24,040

  19

  678

  24,737

  317

  Manchester Business school

  1,323

  0

  156

  1,479

  66

  Manchester University

  60,368

  191

  1,532

  62,091

  3,963

  Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology

  20,969

  407

  1,583

  22,959

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  38,294

  64

  1,065

  39,423

  361

  Nottingham University

  34,717

  31

  459

  35,207

  375

  Oxford University

  54,583

  821

  1,401

  56,805

  496

  Reading University

  22,632

  —

  249

  22,881

  219

  Salford University

  16,759

  13

  1,462

  18,234

  205

  Sheffield University

  37,932

  101

  3,739

  41,772

  300

  Southampton University

  32,456

  70

  637

  33,163

  376

  Surrey University

  15,695

  43

  1,750

  17,488

  190

  Sussex University

  18,420

  70

  1,627

  20,117

  189

  Warwick University

  24,602

  26

  197

  24,825

  194

  York University

  15,432

  17

  126

  15,575

  130

  University of Wales, including University Colleges and Institute of Science and Technology

  89,677

  149

  2,632

  92,458

  971

  Aberdeen University

  26,345

  57

  1,229

  27,631

  223

  Dundee University

  18,794

  50

  639

  19,483

  135

  Edinburgh University

  57,970

  184

  2,025

  60,179

  612

  Glasgow University

  55,849

  127

  1,852

  57,828

  313

  Heriot-Watt University

  15,139

  21

  811

  15,971

  171

  St. Andrews University

  15,007

  62

  903

  15,972

  138

  Stirling University

  11,255

  11

  563

  11,829

  130

  Strathclyde University

  31,604

  145

  811

  32,560

  293

  Other payments

  1684

  289

  3387

  860

  41,050

  Total

  1,512,323

  5,670

  68,039

  1,586,032

  23,169

  1 £662,000 paid direct to the University Central Council on Admissions and £22,000 in respect of the National Engineering Laboratorv, East Kilbride.

  2 £63,000 paid to Cranfield Institute of Technology, £23,000 to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals for administration of the Overseas Research Student Fees Support Scheme and £3,000 to the Royal College of Art.

  3 £87,000 paid to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

  4 £311,000 fees paid to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) for negotiating contracts and £749,000 paid to the Rutherford and Appleton Laboratories (SERC) for networking projects.

  1988–89

  Grants to universities and colleges, etc.

  For capital expenditure

  Universities etc.

  Medical and dental schools

  1Equipment and furniture

  Computers

  Subhead A1(1)

  Subhead A1(2)

  Subhead A2

  Subhead B1

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Aston University

  —

  —

  1,496

  —

  Bath University

  167

  —

  1,423

  2,311

  Birmingham University

  —

  4

  3,321

  3

  Bradford University

  —

  —

  1,288

  11

  Bristol University

  34

  —

  2,423

  768

  Brunel University

  —

  —

  1,268

  1

  Cambridge University

  26

  1

  5,353

  1,437

  City University

  —

  —

  872

  —

  Durham University

  —

  —

  2,033

  209

  East Anglia University

  19

  —

  901

  —

  842 843

  For capital expenditure

  Universities etc.

  Medical and dental schools

  1 Equipment and furniture

  Computers

  Subhead A1(1)

  Subhead A1 (2)

  Subhead A2

  Subhead B1

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Essex University

  —

  —

  684

  4

  Exeter University

  1,008

  185

  944

  99

  Hull University

  —

  —

  1,060

  54

  Keelle University

  52

  —

  568

  389

  Kent University

  —

  —

  694

  110

  Lancaster University

  —

  —

  1,212

  493

  Leeds University

  —

  —

  3,651

  155

  Leicester University

  —

  356

  1,677

  —

  Liverpool University

  —

  —

  3,355

  223

  London Business School

  —

  —

  126

  —

  London University, including its Colleges and Schools

  683

  8,700

  22,680

  5,211

  Loughborough University of Technology

  —

  —

  1,806

  67

  Manchester Business School

  —

  —

  66

  —

  Manchester University

  —

  —

  4,891

  1,787

  Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology

  127

  —

  2,051

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  —

  2,324

  2,880

  210

  Nottingham University

  —

  2

  2,630

  —

  Oxford University

  825

  122

  5,429

  304

  Reading University

  45

  —

  1,885

  22

  Salford University

  1,671

  —

  1,533

  90

  Sheffield University

  —

  16

  2,730

  44

  Southampton University

  618

  —

  2,953

  105

  Surrey University

  —

  —

  1,496

  44

  Sussex University

  —

  —

  1,242

  89

  Warwick University

  —

  —

  1,373

  46

  York University

  —

  —

  1,132

  60

  University of Wales, including University Colleges and Institute of Science and Technology

  2,198

  —

  6,739

  761

  Aberdeen University

  —

  —

  1,713

  14

  Dundee University

  131

  —

  1,355

  153

  Edinburgh University

  —

  —

  4,371

  265

  Glasgow University

  512

  2

  4,336

  532

  Heriot-Watt University

  4,465

  —

  1,899

  9

  St. Andrews University

  —

  —

  858

  43

  Stirling University

  —

  —

  532

  6

  Strathclyde University

  382

  —

  2,333

  —

  Other payments

  —

  —

  —

  647

  Total

  12,963

  11,712

  115,262

  16,776

  1 The sums provided from Subhead A2, earmarked for individual universities as shown, were transferred to a Deposit Account with the Paymaster General from which issues were made as required towards meeting the costs of furniture and equipment. The balance remaining in the Deposit Account at 31 March 1989, which is not liable to surrender to the Consolidated Fund, was £18,737,000. This sum includes £1,725,000 in respect of the Engineering and Technology Programme.

  Note: In addition a further £72,000 was transferred to the deposit account to meet expenditure by Universities for the Engineering and technology Programme. Other payments comprise £647,000 paid to the Rutherford and Appleton Laboratories (SERC) for networking projects.

  Grants and loans for long terms capital projects, universities etc. (Subhead A1( 1))

  1988–89

  Details of expenditure on works services costing more than £1,000,000 shown in Table 1 to the Estimate

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Less than provided

  More than provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Building projects and purchase of existing buildings:

  New and on-going projects originally expected to cost £1 millionor more

  Bath university: Building 6 East

  310

  168

  142

  —

  Bristol university: Veterinary School

  425

  34

  391

  —

  Cardiff university/UWIST: Joint Faculty Building

  1,900

  8

  1,892

  —

  Cardiff/UWIST Mechanical and Civil Engineering

  400

  124

  276

  —

  Dundee university: Library

  365

  131

  234

  —

  Exeter university: Education

  945

  31

  914

  —

  Glasgow university: Chemistry Rationalisation II

  1,035

  72

  963

  —

  Heriot-Watt university

  (a) Chemical and Process Engineering

  135

  54

  81

  —

  (b) Library Phase II

  285

  303

  —

  18

  (c) Brewing and Biological Science

  1,145

  2,086

  —

  941

  (d) Economics and Social Studies

  880

  968

  —

  88

  London university:

  Queen Mary College—Library

  340

  481

  —

  141

  844 845

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Less than provided

  More than provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Imperial College, Chemistry II

  900

  —

  900

  —

  UMIST: Library

  145

  125

  20

  —

  Oxford university: Electrical Engineering/Computer Science (ETP)

  735

  824

  —

  89

  Salford university:

  (a) Physical Restructuring

  1,220

  56

  1,164

  —

  (b) Library II

  680

  82

  598

  —

  Southampton university: Library

  85

  209

  —

  124

  Strathclyde university: Royal College rationalisation II

  235

  382

  —

  147

  Total (Subhead A1(1))

  12,165

  6,138

  7,575

  1,548

  Grants and loans for long term capital projects: Medical and dental schools, (Subhead A1 (2) )—1988–89

  Details of expenditure on works services costing more than £1,000,000 shown in table 2 to the estimate

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Less than provided

  More than provided

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Building projects and purchase of existing buildings:

  1. New and on-going projects originally expected to cost the UGC £1 million or more

  London University: St. Mary's HMS, phase IB

  183

  65

  118

  —

  London University: Institute of Child Care, Cardiac wing, remedial works

  227

  51

  176

  —

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Cyclotron building, remedial works

  98

  —

  98

  —

  London University: Cardiothoracic Institute, Cardiothoracic centre, phase 1

  714

  —

  714

  —

  London University: Institute of Dermatology, relocation at St. Thomas' hospital

  872

  —

  872

  —

  Manchester University: Royal Infirmary, phase II

  920

  —

  920

  —

  London University: Queen Mary College

  3,727

  618

  3,109

  —

  Newcastle University: Royal Victoria Infirmary, phase V

  2,781

  —

  2,781

  —

  2. New and on-going phased medical projects, the total contribution to all phases expected to be £1 million or more

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, redevelopment of Hammersmith Hospital, phase 1

  155

  —

  155

  —

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Redevelopment of Hammersmith Hospital catering centralisation

  250

  —

  250

  —

  London University: University College Middlesex, HMS Whittington Hospital development, phase 1

  371

  —

  371

  —

  London University: University College Middlesex Hospital Medical School, resiting clinical areas

  623

  —

  623

  —

  Sub Total

  10,921

  734

  10,187

  —

  3. Projects expected to start in 1988–89 on which the UGC contribution not yet agreed

  400

  —

  —

  —

  4. On-going projects not separately identified

  306

  —

  —

  —

  5. Furniture on health-controlled schemes

  300

  —

  —

  —

  6. Sites and leases

  700

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL (MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS) (SUBHEAD A1(2))

  12,627

  734

  10,187

  —

  TOTAL (UNIVERSITIES, ETC.) (SUBHEAD A(1(1)) (TABLE 1))

  12,165

  6,138

  7,575

  1,548

  TOTAL SUBHEAD A1

  24,792

  6,872

  17,762

  1,548

  846 847

  1988–89

  Grants for expenditure long term capital computer projects, (subhead B1)

  Details of expenditure on computer projects costing more than £1,000,000 payable under subhead B1

  Project

  Provision

  Expenditure

  Expenditure compared with Provision

  Less than Provided

  More than Provided

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Projects costing £1 million or more1

  Aberdeen University (new computer)

  301

  6

  295

  —

  Bristol University (new computer)

  1,330

  1,323

  7

  —

  Glasgow University (new computer)

  470

  470

  —

  —

  Kings College, London (new computer)

  —

  917

  —

  917

  Manchester University (new computer national centre)

  41

  21

  20

  —

  Loughborough University (new computer)

  1,195

  —

  1,195

  —

  Oxford University (new computer)

  303

  283

  20

  —

  Sub Total

  3,640

  3,020

  1,537

  917

  Projects costing less than £1m

  End-year flexibility

  13,151

  13,756

  —

  605

  Total (Subhead B1)

  16,791

  16,776

  1,537

  1,522

  1All projects are for the replacement of centrally managed computer facilities whose total Computer Board contribution exceeds £1,000,000. The purchases are made on the basis of fixed price contracts when payment profiles extend over more than one year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  British Telecom Services
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to require British Telecom to introduce itemised billing within the next 12 months for its services to the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The monitoring of British Telecom's operation in the House over the next 12 months is not expected to involve the preparation of itemised bills.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much it will cost to maintain the British Telecom monopoly provision of services to the House of Commons over the next 12 months; and what is the figure with the option of using Mercury's services.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: On the basis of figures given for 1988 in appendix 1 of the first report of the Services Committee for Session 1988–89 (HC 143), the total cost of telecommunications services for the 12 months to 31 March 1990 is estimated to be £1,689,000, of which call charges will account for some £618,600. It is estimated that a change to Mercury outgoing telephone lines as proposed by CCTA would save some £50,000 to £75,000.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that Oftel's policy of promoting competing telecom operators, for the benefit of consumers, is adopted by the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The effect on the House of Oftel's national policy of promoting effective competition between telecommunications organisations was considered by the Services Committee in its first report of this Session (HC 143). I have nothing to add to the statements made in that report.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that there will be close and careful monitoring of the existing services provided by British Telecom to the House during the next 12 months.
  848
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: Such an exercise is already being considered by the authorities of the House in response to the first report of the Services Committee of this Session (HC(1988–89)143) on "Telecommunications: The Provision of Services to the House."

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any consignments of ivory have been seized or detained at ports of entry since 12 April.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Yes, but records of such seizures held centrally are incomplete at this stage. Records of detentions are not maintained centrally and the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has regarding cargoes of raw and worked ivory currently held at British ports of entry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Consignments of ivory continue to be intercepted by Customs and may be detained or seized according to the circumstances. The Department of the Environment is consulted as necessary in individual cases.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the elements of economic activity by which he measures gross domestic product; and whether there are any significant differences in measurement between the United Kingdom and other members of G 7.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Economic activity, as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP), includes all those activities which result in the production of goods and services exchanged for money. These include the production of physical commodities, that is, the products
  849
  of the agriculture, extractive, manufacturing and construction industries. It also covers service-producing activities: transport and communication, wholesale and retail distribution, hotels and catering, financial services, hospitals and education, as well as public administration and defence.

  Additionally, some activities not exchanged for money are included. Three main examples are: the provision of owner-occupied housing; the non-trading use of fixed assets owned by the Government and by private non-profit-making bodies; and the cost of employees' income in kind.

  Further information on measurement of GDP may be found in the introductory section of the 1988 edition of "United Kingdom National Accounts", otherwise known as the "CSO Blue Book", and "United Kingdom National Accounts: Sources and Methods", both of which are available from the House of Commons Library.

  GDP and other national accounts estimates supplied to international organisations are based on the United Nations system of national accounts (SNA). These estimates are similar to the Central Statistical Office's estimates appearing in the CSO Blue Book and other CSO publications, with small variations mainly reflecting presentation rather than differences of substance.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the balance of payments surplus or deficit in each year from 1964 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Figures for the current account balance are published in Economic Trends, annual supplement, 1989 edition, table 29 (for the years 1964 to 1987) and in Economic Trends, June 1989, table A 1 (giving the latest estimate for 1988). Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards the introduction of independent taxation in April 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  Preparations are well in hand for the introduction of independent taxation in April 1990.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much total employment has risen since 1983.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since March 1983, the work force in employment has increased by 3,123,000.

  CBI
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss United Kingdom economic policy.
  850
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the CBI from time to time, and a wide range of subjects is discussed.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of economic growth in the lastest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The output measure of gross domestic product is estimated to have grown by 2½ per cent. in the year to the first quarter of 1989. But this figure was depressed by accidents in the North sea oil sector. Excluding North sea oil, output grew by 4 per cent. in the year to the first quarter of 1989.

  Public Spending Planning
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will makes statement on the public spending planning total.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The public expenditure planning total is the aggregate used by the Government for planning and control purposes. The outturn for 1989–90 is expected to be in line with the plan of £167·1 billion.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury is taking to ensure adequate levels of efficiency and value for money in Her Majesty's Government's public expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech my predecessor gave on 21 June, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This speech describes the very considerable progress which the Government are making to secure greater efficiency and value for money in the public services.

  Income Tax
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the income of a single person on half average earnings went on income tax in 1979–80 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1979–80 a single person on half average male earnings paid 16·4 per cent. of his earnings in income tax. In 1988–89, he paid 15·2 per cent.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has revised the figures given in his reply dated 10 April,Official Report, column 348, concerning the number of tax units and tax liability by range of total income; and whether he will publish in the Official Report a table breaking down the figures to show (i) steps of £1,000 between £10,000 and £15,000 (ii) for £15,000–£17,499 (iii) £20,000–£24,999 and (iv) £100,000 and above.

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures in the reply of 10 April to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 348, have not been revised.

  I regret that reliable estimates for more detailed income ranges are not available, as estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes. All estimates are provisional and subject to some degree of uncertainty.
  851
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people make up the 1 per cent. of taxpayers who pay the most tax; and at what level of income this 1 per cent. begins.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: In 1989–90 the top 1 per cent. of income tax payers includes about 210,000 single people and married couples with income of over £60,000 per annum. This estimate is based on their income subject to tax, before deduction of tax reliefs and personal allowances.

  Manufacturing Profitability
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increase in manufacturing profitability during the latest full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest full-year estimate of manufacturing companies' profitability, as indicated by the net rate of return on capital employed, is for 1987. Manufacturing profitability increased from 7·5 per cent., in 1986 to 9·2 per cent. in 1987. The level of manufacturing profitability in 1987 was the highest since 1969.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide an up-to-date estimate of the yield of stamp duty on the sale of domestic premises in the current financial year and in 1988–89, with a breakdown by regions where possible.

  Mr. Lilley
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of high interest rates on(a) the inflow of short-term capital, (b) the supply of credit and (c) the supply of money; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1970 the rate of inflation, the average rate of interest, the public sector deficit, the trade deficit and the estimated inflow of foreign funds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Foreign Funds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the inflow of foreign funds in 1988 to finance the purchase of(a) British companies and (b) other assets; and if he will provide an estimate for this year to date;

  (2) what effect the inflow of foreign funds is having on asset prices and on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Current Account Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much of the budget surplus in 1988 was used to neutralise the effect on credit and the money supply of the current account deficit; and how this was achieved;
  852
  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the monetary counterpart of the current account deficit in 1988 and in the first five months of the current year;

  whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1970 the balance of payments with the EEC and with the rest of the world on current account less viable trade at current and at 1988 prices; and to what he ascribes the change of mind.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Lending (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of sterling lending to overseas residents in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Output Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information on output per head of the working population given in his reply of 8 November,Official Report, column 111.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Output1

  1959

  69·2

  1963

  74·8

  1968

  87·3

  1972

  95·1

  1973

  99·1

  1974

  97·6

  1975

  94·8

  1976

  95·6

  1977

  96·8

  1978

  99·2

  1979

  99·9

  1980

  96·2

  1981

  94·4

  1982

  95·8

  1983

  98·4

  1984

  98·7

  1985

  100·0

  1986

  102·2

  1987

  106·4

  1988

  110·9

  1 Output per head of work force excluding class 13 (1985 = 100).

  Average annual increase Per cent.

  1959 to 1973

  2·6

  1973 to 1988

  0·7

  1979 to 1988

  1·2

  Notes:

  1. Based on mid-year estimates of the work force.

  2. 1959 is given as the first year because consistent figures on employees are not available earlier.

  3. Figures refer to United Kingdom.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he expects the single market to have on the balance of trade with the EEC in invisibles; and if he will list the sectors for which exports are expected to increase faster than imports.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage of total personal income taken by(a) direct taxes on household including rates and (b) employees social security contributions in 1973–74, 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  I will answer when resources permit.

  Pension Fund Holidays
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report the value in 1988 and the current year to date of pension fund contribution holidays taken by employers and employees respectively, together with his estimate of the amount of tax due thereon.

  Mr. Lilley
  I shall answer when resources permit.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  As at 25 July, the figures for the current Session, 1988–89, were as follows:

  Number

  Affirmative Statutory Instruments

  7

  Negative Statutory Instruments

  38

  Total

  45

  For early parliamentary Sessions, I refer the hon. Member to the respective sessional Journals of the House of Commons.

  Finished Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures now consist of imports of personal computers and of the products of screwdriver plants; how many constituents of the index of manufacturing output are based on other than net output; and what is their weight.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information in respect of personal computers and screwdriver plants is not available.

  For an explanation of the methods and sources used for the index of manufacturing output, I refer the hon.
  854
  Member to the article "The Rebased Index of Production" which was published in Economic Trends (February 1989), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1973, 1978, 1987 and 1988 the estimated increase in the value and weighted average volume of output of manufacturing industries less food, drink and tobacco, paper, printing and publishing and other minerals and mineral products.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The values of output required may be derived from the summary tables to the annual census of production for the years in question. The index of production for the required aggregate is given in the table:

  Index of Industrial Production (1985 = 100) Manufacturing industries less food, drink and tobacco, paper, printing nd publishing, and extraction of minerals n.e s.

  Value

  1973

  113·0

  1978

  107·4

  1987

  106·2

  1988

  114·0

  Tax Incentives
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to amend the tax reforms to give incentives to mothers who choose not to go out to work but stay at home to raise their families.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: I have no plans to do so.

  Millionaires
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of millionaires in Britain.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The latest provisional estimate is that about 18,000 individuals owned wealth exceeding £1,000,000 in 1986.

  Public Spending
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the implications for public spending of the sustained fall in unemployment.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  We estimate that spending on the Social Security programme would be about £3·3 billion higher than planned in the current year if the sustained fall in unemployment over the last three years had not taken place.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lacky Bridge Checkpoint
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many soldiers were released for other duties as a result of dismantling Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint.
  855
  Mr. Cope
  Although I am not prepared to give specific information about the number of troops involved in particular tasks, the removal of the permanent vehicle checkpoint will mean a useful addition to the number of soldiers available for other duties in the Lacky bridge area, and will allow them to operate in a more flexible, mobile and unpredictable manner.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the 13 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Northern Ireland have been in dairy cows; and how many have been in beef cattle.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There have been 15 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Northern Ireland, the most recent being confirmed on 18 July.

  All the animals affected were cows belonging to dairy breeds and all originated in dairy herds. By the time of diagnosis, two of these cows had been transferred to suckler herds used to raise calves for beef production.

  Fixed Penalty Tickets
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fixed penalty tickets have been issued in the last 12 months; and how many of these have been paid.

  Mr. Cope
  In the 12 months ended 31 May 1989, 64,539 fixed penalty notices were issued of which 55,822 have been paid to date.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many fixed penalty tickets have been issued by traffic wardens in the Lenadoon and Ardoyne areas of west Belfast and how many have been paid in the last 12 months;

  (2). how many fixed penalty tickets have been issued in respect of parking in an area unmarked by double yellow lines or other road markings adjacent to bollards at the car park entrance to Murrayfield shopping centre;

  (3). how many fixed penalty tickets have been issued in Larne, County Antrim by traffic wardens in the last 12 months; and how many of these have been paid.

  Mr. Cope
  Records are not maintained of the geographical distribution of fixed penalty notices and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many traffic wardens are employed in Lame, county Antrim.

  Mr. Cope
  Four.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many traffic wardens are employed in the Lenadoon and Ardoyne areas of west Belfast.

  Mr. Cope
  None.

  Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order (S.I., 1983, No. 764) by deleting at line 4 of section 33 the word "shall" and replacing it with the word "may" and by deleting the word "shall" at line 8 of the same section and replacing it by the word "may".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The existing provisions of article 33 of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 were designed to replace the permissive provisions of previous legislation which were clearly not having the desired effect of requiring dog owners to keep their animals under control. This was a matter of serious public concern at the time of making the order.

  The reason for the inclusion of article 33 (1) in its mandatory form was to effect the removal of an anomaly in the existing law whereby humans did not have the same protection from attack as livestock.

  Before the introduction of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 the provisions of the Dogs Act 1906 as amended by the Livestock (Protection from Dogs) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, section 3, required courts to order the destruction of a dog which had caused injury to sheep. There was no comparable provision for humans and this, naturally, led to considerable Government and public concern when biting dogs were free to repeat their attacks. This point was also reflected in the report of the 1976 working party on dogs.

  The making of a destruction order does not, of course, necessarily mean that a dog will automatically be put down since the Dogs Order makes provision for appeal.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list any cases in the past seven years where transfers of prisoners from Great Britain were refused by the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The Northern Ireland Office does not have overall responsibility for decisions on transfer requests from inmates in Great Britain. The final decision is taken by the Secretaries of State for the Home Department or for Scotland as appropriate. Twenty-eight requests have been refused on the Northern Ireland Office's recommendation since 1982. It would be a breach of confidentiality to name the individuals who made these requests.

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time fishermen there are; and if he is in a position to estimate the number of people employed (i) full-time and (ii) part-time in the non-catching section of the fishing industry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The information is as follows:
  857

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Enterprise

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Total

  Catching

  956

  —

  956

  295

  —

  295

  1,251

  Processing

  329

  441

  770

  61

  102

  163

  933

  Wholesalers

  26

  4

  30

  6

  —

  6

  36

  Boatbuilding

  44

  5

  49

  —

  —

  —

  49

  Harbour staff/others

  24

  9

  33

  12

  1

  13

  46

  Retail outlets

  29

  3

  32

  2

  2

  4

  36

  Total

  1,408

  462

  1,870

  376

  105

  481

  2,351

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fishing vessels operate out of each of the fishing ports; and what is their overall size and their approximate age.

  Table A

  Vessels over 10 metres registered length classified according to registered length and home port at 31 December 1988

  Port

  Registered length of vessels (metres)

  10 to 11·9

  12 to 17·9

  18 to 23·9

  24 to 32·9

  33 to 41·9

  42+over

  Total

  Kilkeel

  8

  31

  63

  7

  2

  —

  111

  Portavogie

  1

  30

  41

  —

  —

  —

  72

  Ardglass

  1

  12

  3

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Others

  14

  8

  3

  —

  1

  1

  27

  24

  81

  110

  7

  3

  1

  226

  TableB

  Vessels over 10 metres registered length classified according to age at 31 December 1988

  Age

  Registered length of vessels (metres)

  10 to 11·9

  12 to 17·9

  18 to 23·9

  24 to 32·9

  33 to 41·9

  42+over

  Total

  Under 10 years

  12

  —

  17

  1

  1

  1

  32

  11–20 years

  11

  17

  25

  2

  2

  —

  57

  21 years and over

  1

  64

  69

  3

  —

  —

  137

  Total

  24

  81

  111

  6

  3

  1

  226

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the weight and value of landings of fish in each of the fishing ports in each of the past 10 years.

  Live weight and estimated value of all fish landed in Northern Ireland

  Total

  Ardglass

  Kilkeel

  Portavogie

  Other N.I. ports

  Year

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  1979

  12,817·51

  6,616,813

  2,390·44

  1,181,582

  6,317·27

  3,309,119

  3,792·27

  1,949,250

  317·53

  176,862

  1980

  13,636·55

  4,622,052

  3,483·62

  1,120,791

  6,425·46

  2,294,712

  328,8·05

  1,088,534

  439·42

  118,015

  1981

  21,134·07

  6,510,404

  4,219·87

  1,225,651

  8,175·17

  2,455,314

  8,263·10

  2,612,878

  475·93

  216,561

  1982

  3,4074·19

  9,625,534

  3,265·05

  1,006,335

  11,112·93

  4,449,450

  9,290·84

  2,956,618

  10,405·37

  1,213,131

  1983

  36,989·64

  10,646,732

  2,811·29

  1,018,966

  9,276·61

  4,623,889

  5,895·32

  2,573,299

  19,006·42

  2,430,578

  1984

  31,923·24

  9,418,010

  2,224·30

  757,544

  8,085·41

  3,876,137

  7,660·82

  2,817,243

  13,952·71

  1,967,086

  1985

  23,272·97

  10,264,507

  3,037·35

  1,370,338

  8,562·07

  4,488,573

  10,095·19

  4,112,725

  1,578·36

  292,871

  1986

  21,935·66

  13,547,228

  2,283·67

  1,344,238

  8,683·86

  6,459,041

  9,633·38

  5,268,811

  1,334·75

  475,138

  1987

  21,444·48

  15,232,415

  2,781·84

  1,601,166

  9,781·92

  7,659,284

  7,939·15

  5,475,568

  941·57

  496,397

  1988

  23,814·52

  15,813,829

  4,440·94

  1,985,599

  9,564·38

  7,116,720

  8,105·62

  5,428,954

  1,703·58

  1,282,556

THE ARTS

  South Bank
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has regarding the impact on the activities of the south bank arts complex by the proposed works for British Rail's Channel tunnel link.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that representatives of the South Bank board will be having discussions with British Rail in the near future.
  858
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The weight and value of fish landings in each of the fishing ports in each of the past 10 years are set out in the table:

CIVIL SERVICE

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister for Civil Service if he has received any recent representations about pilot or permanent workplace creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return to employment of women in the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  (holding answer 25 July 1989)My officials recently had an ad hoc meeting with the Council of Civil Service Unions to review developments. I am encouraging
  859
  Departments to assist recruitment and retention by setting up and supporting value for money child care schemes. In my Department, to date, the Civil Service college, Sunningdale, has plans for a nursery and the equal opportunities division co-ordinates the Westminster multidepartmental holiday scheme for five to 12-year-olds.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Members (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas visits by hon. Members or former hon. Members his Department has sponsored in the past two years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Fourteen hon. Members have travelled to the United Nations General Assembly in New York under FCO sponsorship (seven in 1987–88, seven in 1988–89). There have been no visits under the FCO sponsored visitors scheme. That figure does not include visits overseas by FCO Ministers, or hon. Members travelling in a ministerial capacity.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The details are as follows:

  Session

  Number of SI's issued

  Negative resolution

  Affirmative resolution

  1984–85

  37

  4

  15

  1985–86

  28

  4

  8

  1986–87

  52

  13

  3

  1987–88

  48

  9

  9

  1988–891

  26

  5

  2

  1 To date

  Malaysia
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, consequent upon the execution of Derrick Gregory, he will make it his policy to review all British aid to Malaysia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have already expressed our disappointment that the Malaysian Government were unable to respond favourably to our appeals for clemency. Nonetheless, Derrick Gregory was fairly tried under Malaysian law. He himself never denied his guilt. It is not appropriate to link this case with United Kingdom aid to Malaysia.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent there has been an increase in the United Kingdom's diplomatic activities in Bulgaria over the past year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been no increase in United Kingdom activities in Bulgaria over the past year. We have 860
  consistently pressed the Bulgarian authorities to respect the rights of the ethnic Turkish minority and to fulfil all their CSCE commitments.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The forecast outturn for spending on official hospitality by both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the financial year 1988–89 is estimated to be £5·3 million.

  African Elephants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold discussions with the Governments of Botswana and Zambia about compensation for forgoing elephant cropping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to do so. In preparation for the next meeting of parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora in October, the Republic of Cameroon is consulting African Governments on how best to afford protection under the convention of the African elephant.

  Overseas Opposition Parties
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning guidelines followed when offering assistance to opposition parties overseas, and when they were first formulated.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no general guidelines on assistance to opposition parties overseas. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the assistance offered to opposition parties overseas for the most appropriate period for which such details are readily available; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 20 July,Official Report, columns 333–34, he will give details of the two seizures made by the special task force in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 21 June 1989, a cargo of 58·9 kg. of ivory tusks was seized. The importer was fined HK$ 10,000, and the ivory has been mandatorily confiscated in accordance with Hong Kong law. The second case is still sub judice.

  Democracy (Warsaw Pact Countries)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent offers have been made to Warsaw pact countries to assist in strengthening internal political democracy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We very much welcome steps taken in some Warsaw pact countries towards a more democratic system. We are glad to offer practical help where we can. We have, for example, established a "know-how fund" for Poland to help develop the skills needed to run a democratic and market-based economy.

  Israel
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the Israeli Government for an explanation of the circumstances of the death of Yasser Abu Ghosh of Beitunia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. We hope that the inquiry announced by the Israeli authorities will be thorough and impartial.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he anticipates giving the further reply promised in his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North of 10 April,Official Report, column 358, relating to European Parliament Members' expenses.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The figures for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 are:

  ECU

  1985

  (1·6989 ECU =£1)

  Secretarial expenses

  14,934,557 (£8,790,721)

  Travel and subsistence

  16,894,616 (£9,944,444)

  Other

  9,881,776 (£5,816,573)

  1986

  (1·4948 ECU=£1)

  Secretarial expenses

  18,999,805 (£12,710,600)

  Travel and subsistence

  23,691,177 (£15,849,061)

  Other

  12,381,859 (£8,283,288)

  1987

  (1·4138 ECU=£1)

  Secretarial expenses

  21,640,304 (£15,306,481)

  Travel and subsistence

  24,176,592 (£17,100,432)

  Other

  13,308,058 (£9,412,970)

  1988

  (1·5057 ECU=£1)

  862

  ECU

  Secretarial expenses

  22,129,579 (14,697,203)

  Travel and subsistence

  26,904,820 (17,868,645)

  Other

  13,606,824 (£9,036,876)

  (b) The average amounts per member for 1988 were:

  ECU

  Secretarial expenses

  42,721 (£28,373 at 1·5057 ECU)

  Travel and subsistence

  51,940 (£34,496 at 1·5057 ECU)

  Other

  26,268 (£17,446 at 1·5057 ECU)

  Separate figures for accommodation and travel are not available.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the co-operation of Her Majesty's Government with the democratic opposition in Chile in the light of the next presidential election there.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We welcome the good progress being made towards a restoration of democracy in Chile. With our partners in the Twelve, we continue to encourage that process. We regularly invite to Britain representatives of Chilean political parties.

  Namibia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom help to the United Nations for fair and free elections in Namibia; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the presence in Namibia of South African troops during pre-election time.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are giving our full support to the United Nations operation in Namibia. We have contributed a signals unit to the UN force (UNTAG) and are making a major financial commitment to the cost of UNTAG. We have contributed £500,000 towards the costs of repatriating Namibian refugees and have also contributed about £650,000 worth of food aid. We support the provisions in the United Nations plan for the restriction to base and phased withdrawal of South African forces from Namibia.

  Central America
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding Her Majesty's Government policy towards the Esquipulas II agreement and dialogue with those central American countries parties to it.
  863
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have consistently supported efforts to promote a peaceful negotiated settlement to the various conflicts in central America within the framework of the Esquipulas II and subsequent agreements. With our EC partners, we participate actively in the dialogue with the central American countries through the San Jose series of conferences.

  Peru
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, since prisoners in Peruvian gaols have to provide for their own upkeep, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure British nationals detained in Lurigancho prison have sufficient funds to obtain sustenance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 July 1989, c. 335]: The Peruvian prison authorities provide sustenance for all persons detained in their prisons. The food served is Peruvian fare.

  All British nationals currently detained in Lurigancho prison are in receipt of funds from their relatives and friends in the United Kingdom for additional prison comforts.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what information he has about the detention of John Boxall and Brian Tristram in a Peruvian gaol since 6 December 1988 and the reasons they have been detained without trial.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 July 1989, c. 335]: Mr. Boxall and Mr. Tristram were detained by the Peruvian police on 6 December 1988 on suspicion of drug trafficking. They were formally charged on 27 December 1988 and remanded to Lurigancho prison. The judicial investigatory process is continuing. The delay in bringing them to trial is not unusual.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that John Boxall and Brian Tristram both of the county of Bedfordshire will be speedily brought to trial in Peru.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 July 1989, c. 335]: Mr. Boxall and Mr. Tristram are legally represented and it is for their legal representative to seek to ensure that their trial is held as speedily as possible. He has taken action to this end. It would be contrary to internationally accepted practice for us to seek to interfere in the judicial process of an independent sovereign state. We would not tolerate such interference in our own judicial processes.

EMPLOYMENT

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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 by his Department prior to May 1979.
  864
  Mr. Nicholls
  The last three White Papers produced by this Department for which legislation has started are: "Building Businesses … Not Barriers", Command 9794, 22 May 1986; "Employment for the 1990s", Command 540, 5 December 1988 and "Employment in the Ports: The Dock Labour Scheme", Command 664, 6 April 1989. Proposals first published in Command 9794 were incorporated in the 1988 Employment Bill which was first read in the Commons on 30 November 1988. Clause 21 of the Bill (now the Employment Bill 1989) was incorporated on 16 March of this year and derives from Command 540. The Dock Work Bill had its First Reading on 7 April of this year.

  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.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place a copy of the Atkinson/Revington study of regional office organisation in the Training Agency in the Library; and what monitoring Training Agency regional offices will carry out with regard to training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  The document is an internal organisational review and is not appropriate for deposit in the Library. Training Agency regional officers will monitor a TEC's performance to check contract compliance and to ensure that each TEC is performing in line with the targets and objectives set out in the agreed business plan.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS places were agreed by each payment type; how many young people were in training by each training type; and what was the proportion of those in training relative to the number of agreed places by standard Training Agency region, for Great Britain as a whole, and for each of the last three months.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since the introduction of the new funding structure for YTS in April of this year, the number of agreed places is no longer available by payment type. The tables give the other figures requested.

  Table 1

  In-training as a proportion of agreed places

  Region

  April

  May

  June

  South East

  68·5

  68·0

  68·1

  London

  69·6

  70·2

  70·5

  South West

  71·7

  71·7

  72·3

  West Midlands

  64·1

  63·4

  68·0

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  74·1

  72·7

  75·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  74·1

  72·6

  77·2

  North West

  76·1

  76·6

  79·5

  Northern

  77·9

  76·6

  80·3

  Wales

  84·6

  83·8

  86·1

  Scotland

  78·8

  77·5

  82·2

  Great Britain

  73·4

  72·8

  75·7

  865

  Table 2

  Number in-training by payment type by region as at the last three months

  Basic

  Premium

  ITEC

  Additional Units

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  Scotland

  38,514

  37,584

  39,620

  8,434

  8,226

  8,304

  1,196

  1,160

  1,310

  323

  375

  368

  Northern

  20,768

  20,014

  20,982

  8,101

  7,880

  8,087

  854

  832

  851

  297

  455

  660

  North West

  45,255

  44,591

  46,455

  11,663

  11,402

  11,439

  1,779

  1,844

  1,968

  471

  569

  682

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  36,528

  35,449

  37,355

  7,153

  6,709

  7,105

  908

  865

  906

  497

  667

  839

  Midlands

  36,036

  35,159

  36,785

  6,097

  5,899

  6,015

  970

  888

  994

  136

  258

  412

  Wales

  17,925

  17,638

  18,110

  5,166

  4,972

  5,123

  656

  736

  738

  157

  223

  315

  South West

  26,417

  25,765

  25,587

  2,874

  2,729

  2,848

  590

  569

  592

  82

  119

  180

  South East

  35,169

  34,362

  34,473

  3,172

  3,052

  3,061

  1,078

  1,042

  1,018

  240

  351

  362

  London

  16,882

  16,642

  16,693

  3,065

  3,109

  3,128

  651

  649

  655

  203

  257

  319

  East Midlands and East

  39,958

  38,849

  39,985

  4,986

  4,781

  4,980

  893

  873

  874

  168

  *275

  339

  Total

  313,452

  306,053

  316,045

  60,711

  58,759

  60,090

  9,575

  9,458

  9,906

  2,575

  3,549

  4,476

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of accidents on YTS, broken down by fatal, major and minor, for the latest available three-month period; and how many YTS placements were closed or not accepted in that period and in the three preceding months.

  Mr. Eggar
  Table A provides YTS accident figures for the period 1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989.

  Table A

  Accidents1

  Fatalities

  2

  Major injuries2

  126

  Minor injuries

  599

  Table B provides the closure and non-acceptance figures for the quarters 1 January 1989 to 31 March and 1 April to 30 June 1989. These figures are provisional.

  Table B

  1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989

  1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989

  Placements closed

  39

  3

  Placements not accepted

  19

  3

  1 Training Agency figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Training Agency's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been

  Table to show the number in training by age at 30 June 1989 by region

  Region

  16

  17

  18

  19

  South East

  5,835

  18,566

  13,460

  1,051

  London

  2,892

  9,189

  7,523

  1,191

  South West

  4,697

  14,017

  9,824

  668

  West Midlands

  8,838

  20,409

  14,236

  718

  East Midlands and Eastern

  8,575

  21,388

  14,918

  1,297

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9,543

  21,111

  4,657

  892

  North West

  11,829

  27,952

  19,159

  1,603

  Northern

  5,875

  14,502

  9,781

  422

  Wales

  4,672

  11,217

  7,903

  494

  Scotland

  5,116

  21,873

  11,979

  628

  Note The ages given are made up of banded age groups as follows:

  16—under 17 years old

  17—over 17 and under 18

  18—over 18 and under 19

  19–19 and over.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will publish up-to-date figures for Great Britain and each Training Agency region the characteristics of all entrants to employment training,
  866
  employed.

  2 Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the average length of stay of trainees on YTS for the most recent convenient period by Training Agency region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average length of stay of YTS trainees is not available by region; however the national figure is around 69 weeks for trainees with two-year entitlement and 36 weeks for trainees with one-year entitlement.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the average length of stay of 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds, respectively, on YTS by Training Agency region for the most recent convenient period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Average length of stay is calculated using a complex model; the information requested can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the numbers of 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds, respectively, on YTS by Training Agency region for the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives the information requested as at 30 June 1989.

  showing how many were (a) men and (b) women, time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds, and whether they had any disabilities.
  867
  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available figures for entrants to employment training, cumulative to 14 July are given in table 1. Figures for entrants showing what proportion are men and women, duration of unemployment prior to joining the programme, their ethnic background and whether disabled or having a health problem are given in table 2. The proportions are cumulative to the end of April (to the end of March for people with disabilities), and are the latest available.

  Table 1

  Employment Training Entrants1

  Region

  Cumulative 5 September-14 July

  South East

  22,700

  London

  32,100

  South West

  19,700

  Table 2

  Employment training characteristics of entrants (September-April) (all figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding)

  Region

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment duration (months)

  Ethnic origin1

  PWD2

  0–6

  6–12

  13–23

  24+

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  South East

  64

  36

  25

  28

  12

  34

  91

  2

  2

  2

  2

  15

  85

  London

  58

  42

  14

  32

  16

  37

  51

  25

  11

  7

  6

  10

  90

  South West

  68

  32

  24

  33

  13

  30

  93

  2

  1

  2

  2

  15

  85

  West Midlands

  68

  32

  17

  27

  13

  42

  79

  9

  8

  2

  2

  12

  88

  East Midlands and Eastern

  72

  28

  12

  34

  14

  39

  88

  4

  5

  1

  2

  14

  86

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  74

  26

  20

  31

  14

  35

  90

  2

  4

  1

  2

  10

  90

  North West

  72

  28

  19

  31

  14

  37

  92

  2

  3

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Northern

  74

  26

  17

  35

  15

  34

  96

  1

  1

  1

  2

  9

  91

  Wales

  71

  29

  19

  36

  14

  31

  95

  1

  1

  1

  3

  11

  89

  Scotland

  73

  27

  12

  32

  17

  39

  96

  ¨

  ¨

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Great Britain total

  70

  30

  18

  32

  14

  36

  88

  5

  4

  2

  2

  12

  88

  1 Ethnic origin

  1—White

  2—Black/African/Caribbean

  3—Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4—None of those

  5—Prefer not to say.

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

  ¨=less than 0·5 per cent.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures for Great Britain and each Training Agency region for each month since September 1988, of the cumulative number of(a) referrals to employment training from the employment service to training agents, (b) agreed employment training action plans at training agents and (c) starts at employment training managers.

  Table 1

  Cumulative employment service referrals to employment training: September 1988 to June 1989

  Employment service region

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  London and South East

  20,700

  38,600

  55,500

  69,600

  87,800

  106,000

  124,700

  141,000

  157,100

  176,100

  South West

  5,100

  9,500

  13,400

  16,900

  21,800

  26,700

  31,800

  36,100

  39,900

  43,300

  West Midlands

  10,300

  19,000

  28,100

  36,300

  46,800

  57,200

  67,900

  76,500

  84,400

  94,100

  East Midlands and Eastern

  7,500

  14,200

  20,500

  25,100

  31,800

  38,400

  45,000

  51,600

  57,000

  63,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10,100

  19,200

  28,100

  35,700

  45,800

  54,700

  64,700

  74,100

  81,900

  91,100

  North West

  12,700

  24,100

  35,300

  44,400

  58,100

  71,000

  85,700

  98,500

  109,500

  123,900

  Northern

  12,500

  20,100

  26,600

  32,200

  40,500

  48,300

  56,000

  63,100

  69,500

  77,400

  Wales

  5,200

  10,600

  16,300

  21,400

  27,500

  33,800

  40,100

  45,900

  50,900

  56,300

  Scotland

  12,300

  23,900

  36,100

  46,500

  59,600

  73,600

  89,400

  100,500

  111,800

  127,000

  Great Britain

  96,500

  179,400

  259,800

  328,100

  419,700

  509,600

  605,300

  687,700

  761,900

  853,100

  868

  Region

  Cumulative 5 September-14 July

  West Midlands

  40,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  29,100

  Yorkshire and Humber

  49,600

  North West

  56,500

  Northern

  38,400

  Wales

  27,200

  Scotland

  43,300

  Great Britain total

  359,200

  1 Combined regional figures may not equal Great Britain totals because of rounding.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the following tables. Employment service referrals are provided in table 1, by employment service region as the information is not available by Training Agency region. Action plans and starts are provided by Training Agency region in tables 2 and 3.
  869

  Table 2

  Cumulative employment training action plans at training agents: September 1988 to June 1989

  Training agency region

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  South East

  1,200

  4,900

  9,100

  13,400

  17,200

  20,900

  25,100

  28,700

  31,700

  34,900

  London

  3,400

  8,000

  13,200

  17,900

  23,400

  29,400

  35,800

  40,300

  44,500

  49,300

  South West

  1,700

  3,800

  6,400

  8,200

  10,700

  12,800

  15,500

  17,800

  19,900

  22,200

  West Midlands

  2,700

  7,800

  13,500

  18,000

  23,400

  29,300

  36,100

  41,000

  44,900

  49,500

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,100

  6,700

  10,300

  13,000

  16,700

  20,400

  24,400

  28,000

  31,000

  34,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,200

  9,300

  15,000

  19,400

  25,200

  31,200

  36,800

  41,900

  47,000

  51,800

  North West

  4,100

  9,900

  16,400

  21,500

  28,100

  35,600

  42,800

  49,200

  54,500

  60,900

  Northern

  4,400

  8,700

  13,200

  16,800

  21,900

  27,700

  33,000

  37,600

  42,000

  46,800

  Wales

  1,900

  4,400

  7,500

  9,900

  13,100

  16,800

  20,200

  23,000

  25,800

  28,500

  Scotland

  4,100

  9,100

  15,700

  21,200

  27,300

  34,600

  42,400

  48,100

  53,500

  59,700

  Great Britain

  30,800

  72,700

  120,200

  159,400

  206,900

  258,700

  312,100

  355,800

  395,000

  438,000

  Table 3

  Cumulative starts at employment training managers: September 1988 to June 1989

  Training agency region

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  South East

  1,500

  3,600

  5,600

  7,300

  9,600

  12,100

  14,200

  16,500

  18,100

  20,500

  London

  2,500

  5,600

  8,700

  11,100

  14,900

  18,300

  22,100

  25,200

  27,700

  30,900

  South West

  1,100

  2,800

  4,800

  6,600

  8,700

  11,200

  13,500

  15,500

  17,200

  19,100

  West Midlands

  2,500

  6,200

  10,000

  13,300

  17,700

  22,700

  27,600

  31,700

  35,000

  38,800

  East Midlands and Eastern

  1,800

  4,500

  7,400

  9,600

  12,500

  16,100

  19,300

  22,400

  24,800

  27,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,000

  7,500

  13,000

  17,400

  22,900

  29,000

  34,300

  39,200

  43,300

  47,800

  North West

  3,000

  8,000

  13,500

  17,700

  23,100

  30,200

  36,700

  42,400

  47,300

  53,600

  Northern

  2,400

  5,600

  9,300

  12,200

  15,800

  20,600

  25,200

  29,000

  32,300

  36,300

  Wales

  1,400

  3,300

  6,000

  8,200

  11,100

  14,700

  17,900

  20,900

  23,200

  25,800

  Scotland

  2,300

  5,500

  9,500

  13,400

  17,100

  22,500

  28,500

  32,900

  36,800

  41,700

  Great Britain

  21,500

  52,500

  87,800

  116,600

  153,300

  197,300

  239,400

  275,700

  305,700

  342,100

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the number of accidents on employment training(a) fatal, (b) major and (c) minor, from the start of the scheme to the latest available date; and how many (i) employer-based work and (ii) project-based work placements have been either rejected or closed on health and safety grounds during the same period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Table A gives the accident figures since the inception of employment training on 5 September 1988 to date.

  Table A

  Number

  Fatal

  Nil

  Major

  109

  Minor

  618

  Separate figures for closures and rejections for employer-based and project-based work placements are not kept. However, table B gives the figures of closures and rejections on health and safety grounds from 5 September to 30 June 1989. These figures are provisional.

  Table B

  Number

  Closed

  10

  Rejected

  Nil

  Job Start
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures showing the total number of payments made under the job start scheme, together with a breakdown of the wages of jobs covered by the scheme in the same format used in the reply given on 10 December 1987,Official Report, columns 231–32.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of payments made under the job start programme from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1989 is 35,393. The breakdown of wages of jobs covered by the scheme is as follows:

  / 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1989

  Wages

  Number

  £

  Under 40

  1,064

  40 to 49

  919

  50 to 59

  4,199

  60 to 69

  7,512

  70 to 79

  14,779

  80 to 90

  6,441

  Information not available 479.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.
  871
  Mr. Eggar
  The number of statutory instruments made by the Department of Employment in the last five parliamentary Sessions is as follows:

  Year

  Negative resolution

  Affirmative draft

  1984–85

  32

  8

  1985–86

  23

  8

  1986–87

  24

  9

  1987–88

  34

  7

  1988–89

  26

  7

  Agricultural Inspectors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many agricultural inspectors have been employed by his Department for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of agricultural inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  1 April

  Number

  1979

  190

  1980

  178

  1981

  176

  1982

  166

  1983

  159

  1984

  154

  1985

  162

  1986

  163

  1987

  166

  1988

  158

  1989

  165

  1 July

  1989

  167

  The commission and executive plan to have 175 agricultural inspectors in post by April 1990.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of environmental training courses that have been organised for agricultural inspectors for each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Environmental training for agricultural inspectors has formed part of the Health and Safety Executive's training programme for enforcement of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA). Thirteen FEPA courses were held between February 1986 and February 1987. Such training also forms part of the intensive training of all new agricultural inspectors recruited to HSE.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the role and duties of his agricultural inspectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Her Majesty's agricultural inspectors are appointed by HSE under the provisions of section 19(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for carrying into effect the relevant statutory provisions within their field of responsibility namely, agriculture, horticulture, forestry and allied industries. Their work also involves an enforcement role under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Inspectors are responsible for seeing that HSE's objectives are met. The aim is through selective inspection,
  872
  advice, persuasion and where necessary the enforcement of legal requirement, to secure good standards of health and safety in the agricultural industry and to see that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that agricultural activities do not endanger the public.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new areas of responsibility were placed on his agricultural inspectors as a result of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectors are authorised to enforce the Control of Pesticides Regulations (CoPR) 1986 made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The regulations provide protection for the users of pesticides, the public and the environment by imposing statutory controls on the sale, supply, advertisement, storage and use of pesticides. Inspectors provide advice and guidance on the legislation and carry out enforcement duties on those premises where HSE is already the enforcing authority.

  The Government increased the commission's financial provision for 1988–89; the additional resources will be used in part to increase numbers of inspectors in the agricultural inspectorate to enforce CoPR.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the number of agricultural inspectors employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers agreed in the last public expenditure round to increase financial provision to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive for 1989–92, and this will allow for an increase in the total number of agricultural inspectors employed.

  The commission and executive plan to have 175 agricultural inspectors in post by April 1990, compared with 167 in post on 1 July 1989.

  A recruitment board has just completed interviewing candidates, and offers of appointment will be made shortly; a further recruitment exercise is planned for later in the year.

  Dock Labour
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what financial provision has been made to finance the dissolution of the National Dock Labour Board.

  Mr. Fowler
  The Department of Employment is seeking to make provision of £6,000,000 for the dissolution of the National Dock Labour Board; and for connected purposes. Parliamentary approval will be sought in a supplementary Supply Estimate for the Department of Employment: employment programmes and central services, Class VII, Vote 2. Pending that approval urgent expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Collieries (Safety)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many underground fires occurred in British Coal collieries between April 1987 and September 1988; and at how many collieries there were three or more such fires;
  873
  (2) how many cases of underground fires at British Coal collieries between April 1987 and September 1988 fire or smoke alarms or similar monitoring devices were alerted; and what were the reasons for any failures.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: During this period there were 99 outbreaks of fire below ground at British Coal collieries and eight had three or more such occurrences. Information is not available on the number of devices alerted or failures that have occurred.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how would his estimate of the number of working families affected by marginal tax rates of over 40 per cent. be affected if take up of family credit and housing benefit were 100 per cent. and if the effects of the parental contribution to student grants were also taken into account.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested in the first part of the question is not available. Any overlap between families with children on income-related benefits and parents making a contribution to mandatory awards is likely to be negligible. Questions concerning parental contributions to mandatory grants are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has studied the state pension schemes in other European Economic Community countries with a view to the completion of the internal market in 1992; and if he will publish the comparable figures for retirement pensions for each of the European Economic Community countries for an adult male worker with a lifetime's contribution record.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has kept itself informed about the pension schemes in other European Community countries, and since 1977 has published an annual review of the various schemes in the form of the "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each group listed in his answer of 14 November 1988, Official Report, columns 517–18, the number of state pensioners receiving income support; the total number of state pensioners in that group; and the cumulative cost at each incremental stage of increasing the level of income support for the elderly by six successive increments of £1 and £1·50 for singles and married couples.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available estimates are as follows:

  Millions

  Number receiving Income Support and Retirement Pension

  Singles

  1·27

  Couples

  0·20

  874

  Millions

  Number receiving Retirement Pension

  Singles

  4·6

  Couples

  2·6

  Cumulative costs (at 1989 rates) of increasing income-related benefits for those aged 60 and over by 6 successive increments of £1 for singles and £1·50 for couples

  Singles (£ million)

  £1

  100

  £2

  200

  £3

  305

  £4

  410

  £5

  515

  £6

  620

  Couples (£ million)

  £1·50

  55

  £3

  110

  £4·50

  175

  £6

  240

  £7·50

  300

  £9

  360

  Claimants (Credit Transfer)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy to encourage claimants to opt for automatic credit transfer.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Current policy is to encourage people to have their benefits paid into bank accounts by automated credit transfer. This method of payment is cheaper, more convenient for many, and reduces the risk of fraud. A leaflet explaining the advantages of ACT is included with retirement pension and child benefit claim forms.

  At present, 38 per cent. of new pensioners and 32 per cent. of new recipients of child benefit choose to be paid by this method.

  Mortgages
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of families with children have mortgages, distinguishing between working and out-of-work families and between those who earn(a) under £150 per week, (b) £150–£200, (c) £200–£300 and (d) over £300.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is in the table. For earlier Sessions, the figures are for only those statutory instruments issued by the Department of Health and Social Security which relate to social security matters.
  875

  Session

  Affirmative instruments

  Negative instruments

  1984–85

  12

  51

  1985–86

  9

  46

  1986–87

  13

  56

  1987–88

  19

  121

  1988–89

  8

  32

  Mobility Allowance
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give the numbers of(a) appeals to a medical board for mobility allowance and (b) allowances then awarded over the latest 12-month period for each area in England;

  (2) what was the number of claims for mobility allowance made over the latest 12-month period for each area in England;

  (3) what was the number of claims for mobility allowances over the latest 12-month period which have been successful at the first stage, after examination of doctor's reports, for each area in England.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that it is not possible to provide information in the form requested. For the information which is available, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 17 January 1989 at column 120.

  Real increase rents 1988–89

  Cost of 1 per cent, increase in 1988–89

  Increase on HB in 1988–89

  Real increase rents 1989–90

  Cost of 1 per cent, increase in 1989–90

  Increase on HBin 1989–90

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)x(2)

  Rent rebates

  England

  1·7

  26·1

  44·4

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  3·5

  1·8

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  3·5

  4·3

  15·1

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  —

  —

  —

  12·5

  35·0

  87·5

  Total rent rebates

  —

  32·2

  65·7

  —

  35·0

  87·5

  Rent Allowances Great Britain

  5·5

  13·5

  74·3

  28·0

  15·6

  124·8

  Total rents (rebates + allowances)

  —

  —

  140·0

  —

  —

  212·3

  Rate rebates

  England

  1·7

  15·1

  25·7

  32·2

  15·7

  34·5

  Wales

  3·7

  1·0

  3·7

  32·6

  1·0

  2·6

  Total (England and Wales only)

  —

  —

  29·4

  —

  16·7

  37·1

  1 Assumption quoted in paragraph 48 of Cm. 615 (1989 PEWP); latest information and GDP deflator consistent with it.

  2 Assumption quoted in Cm. 615; no information on actual position presently available.

  3 Based on latest information and consistent with GDP deflator; no forecast in Cm. 615.

  Transfer of Work
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the trial exercise to transfer certain accounting work presently carried out at the Post Office at Chesterfield and Edinburgh to the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland has been successfully carried out.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The trial has been fully evaluated in consultation with the Post Office and results have shown that the work can be carried out more efficiently and economically at the paid order store in Northern Ireland.
  876
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who, but for their age, would be eligible for mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: We estimate that there are a further 1,150,000 people who would qualify for mobility allowance if the age limits were abolished, thus tripling the current caseload at a cost of nearly £1½ billion. This estimate is based on projections of the numbers who are already receiving the allowance.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the increase in public expenditure in 1988–89 and his forecast for 1989–90 as a result of the increases in housing benefit required to compensate for increases in, respectively, rents and rates.

  Mr. Scott
  Increases in rents above the level of inflation increased housing benefit expenditure by an estimated £140 million in 1988–89 and by a further £210 million in 1989–90.

  Rate rebates are not treated as public expenditure but real increases in rates are estimated to have increased spending in these years by about £30 million and £35 million respectively in England and Wales.

  It has been agreed that the remainder of the work should be transferred to Northern Ireland on a phased basis, starting with Scotland in October 1989. It is planned to be completed by March 1991.

  The transfer will have no affect on the counter network.

  Widows
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has and from what sources, on the proportion of widows, under 45 years who remarry.
  877
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 May 1989, column 435]: I regret that the reply given has been found to contain an error. The amended reply is as follows:
  Latest available information indicates that the proportion of widows under 45 remarrying in 1987 was approximately 10 per cent.

  Table 3 of the article by John Haskey, of OPCS, entitled "Widowhood, widowerhood and remarriage", published in "Population Trends" No. 30 (January 1983), shows that of those widows aged 40–44 who had remarried in 1980–81, 90 per cent. had done so within 10 years of their being widowed.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many children there are in families who did not take up their entitlement to supplementary benefit and family income supplement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: In 1985, families eligible for supplementary benefit but who did not claim are estimated to have included 160,000 children. The corresponding figure for family income supplement, based on the two years 1985 and 1986 and excluding the self-employed, was 231,000.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioner couples not entitled to income support will receive(a) an increase in rent rebate of £2·28, (b) an increase in rent rebate of 70p, (c) an increase in community charge rebate of 53p and (d) become newly entitled to housing benefit in October;

  (2) what is the number of single pensioners not entitled to income support who, (a) will become entitled to housing benefit, (b) will receive an increase in weekly rent rebate of £1·63, (c) will receive an increase in weekly rate rebate of 50p and (d) will receive an increase in weekly community charge rebate of 38p when applicable amounts are raised in October.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 July 1989]: The numbers likely to be affected by the October 1989 pensioner premium changes in housing benefit only are estimated in the table.

  Housing benefit: Pensioner premium changes, October 1989

  000s

  Rent rebate/allowance

  Newly qualified

  Singles gaining > £1·63

  *

  Couples gaining > £2·28

  *

  Singles/couples gaining £l·63/£2·28 or less

  5

  Existing Claimants

  Singles gaining £1·63

  240

  Couples gaining £2·28

  155

  Singles gaining < £1·63

  75

  Couples gaining < £2·28

  60

  Do not gain

  *

  Total (including starred groups and after rounding)

  545

  Rate rebate (as if in place throughout GB)

  Newly qualified

  Singles gaining > 50p

  20

  Couples gaining > 70p

  15

  Singles/couples gaining 50p/70p or less

  10

  878

  000s

  Existing Claimants

  Singles gaining 50p

  320

  Couples gaining 70p

  210

  Singles gaining < 50p

  100

  Couples gaining < 70p

  65

  Do not gain

  5

  Total (after rounding)

  740

  Community Charge rebate (as if in place throughout GB)

  Newly qualified

  Singles gaining > 38p

  5

  Couples gaining > 53p

  5

  Singles/couples gaining 38p/53p or less

  *

  Existing Claimants

  Singles gaining 38p

  375

  Couples gaining 53p

  330

  Singles gaining < 38p

  120

  Couples gaining < 53p

  70

  Do not gain

  5

  Total (including starred group and after rounding)

  900

  1. Numbers rounded to nearest 5,000. Starred groups denote numbers less than 2,500.

  2. Existing claimants already receiving maximum HB do not gain extra rebates or allowances.

  3. The Scotland only effects of CC rebate cannot be separately identified. The table shows alternative figures (a) on the assumption that rate rebate was in place throughout GB in 1989–90, and (b) on the assumption that Community Charge rebate was in place.

  Benefits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish new estimates of the take-up of supplementary benefit, housing benefit and family income supplement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today placed in the Library technical notes setting out take-up estimates for supplementary benefit and housing benefit for 1985. A further note provides family income supplement take-up estimates based on the two years 1985 and 1986. These estimates confirm previous results and indicate that overall almost £9 out of every £10 of available income-related benefit expenditure is claimed. They also show that overall almost four out of every five people who are eligible for these benefits claim them. This demonstrates that. income-related benefits are an efficient and effective way of helping those in financial need.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the changes in social security law since May 1979 which have affected the entitlement of(a) 16 to 17-year-olds, (b) 18 to 20-year-olds and (c) 21 to 25-year-olds to supplementary benefit or any other benefit or which have affected the entitlement to any benefit of their parents in the same format as his answer to the hon. Member for Derby, South of 20 December 1985, Official Report, column 422.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the main changes in social security law since the end of 1985 specifically affecting the entitlement of young people and their parents, showing who was affected by the change and the relevant legislation in the same form as in the Official Report, 20 December 1985, column 422–6.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answers 12 June and 29 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to

  879
  the hon. Member for Derby South (Mrs. Beckett) on 20 December 1985, at columns 422–26. This listed the main changes from May 1979 to November 1985 in social

  Date

  Change

  Persons Affected

  Legislation

  November 1985

  Extension to the categories of those aged 25 or less who can be treated as in board and lodging accommodation.

  Boarders aged 25 or less

  Supplementary Benefits (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions No. 2 Regulations 1985—SI 1985 No. 1835.

  1986

  Secretary of State empowered to recognise as education being received at home as full time education, if it began before the child became 16.

  Claimants aged 16–19

  Social Security Act 1986

  November 1986

  Students: convenanted parental contribution contributable only to grant-aided period; excess taken into account over whole year—reduces loss of benefit during long vacation.

  Claimants aged 16–25

  The Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1986—SI 1986 No. 1293.

  November 1986

  i. definition of "course of advanced education"; and
  ii. redefinition of "student". Students excluded from entitlement to Supplementary Benefit during Christmas and Easter vacations.

  Young people in higher education

  Supplementary Benefits (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1986—SI 1986 No. 1010.

  April 1987

  Easter school leavers who still have examinations to take cannot claim Supplementary Benefit until their examinations are completed.

  Claimants aged 16–19

  The Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1987—SI 1987 No. 358.

  April 1987

  Defect in SI 1982 No. 907 (estranged 19 year olds) amended. Also entitlement to Supplementary Benefit extended to 16–19 year olds who cannot be supported because their parent(s) are chronically sick, in prison, or unable to enter the country.

  Claimants aged 16–19

  The Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1987. (SI 1987 No. 358).

  April 1987

  Disregard of excess of a custodianship allowance over child scale rate.

  Custodians of young people under 19

  The Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987. (SI 1987 No. 660).

  April 1987

  Students: to be treated as possessing income equal to assessed parental/spouse's contribution to a student grant. Excess grant/covenant income to be taken fully into account

  Claimants aged 16–25

  The Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987—SI 1987 No. 660

  April 1987

  Child Benefit to continue to be paid where a child leaves school before compulsory school age; it can be paid up to the terminal date after he attains compulsory school age

  Claimants aged 16–17

  SI 1987 No. 357

  April 1987

  Revised definitions of "advanced education" and "full-time education"

  Claimants aged 16–19

  SI 1987/No. 357

  Child Benefit to continue to be payable in certain cases where a child has been entered for an external examination

  Claimants aged 16–19

  SI 1987/No. 357

  April 1988

  19 year olds still in non-advanced education no longer treated as members of their parent's families—able to claim in their own right

  19 year olds in non-advanced education

  Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—SI 1987 No. 1967

  April 1988

  Full disregard in Income Support, Housing Benefit, Family Credit for payments by Local Authorities under Section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980

  Young people under 18

  Income Support (Gen.) Regs. 1987—SI 1987 No. 1967

  April 1988

  Local education authority awards to young people in further education and Educational Maintenance Allowances disregarded in full

  Parents of 16–19 years olds

  The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. (SI 1987 No. 1967)

  880
  security law specifically affecting the entitlements of young people and their parents. The following information lists the main changes from November 1985 to June 1989.
  881

  Date

  Change

  Persons Affected

  Legislation

  April 1988

  Custodianship payments disregarded in full in child's capital in excess of £3,000

  Custodians of young people under age 19

  The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. (SI 1987 No. 1967)

  April 1988

  Adoption Allowances disregarded in full in child's capital in excess of £3,000

  Adopters of young people under age 19

  The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. (SI 1987 No. 1967)

  April 1988

  Shared children, only the party with primary responsibility can receive the Income Support dependency addition

  Parents of Young People under 19

  Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. (SI 1987 No. 1967)

  April 1988

  Young person's/child's income may not be treated as claimant's above child's young persons applicable amount—disregard no longer restricted to boarding out or fostering/adoption allowances

  Aged 16–25

  Housing Benefit General Regulations 1987 (No. 1971)

  April 1988

  Earnings disregards: complete disregard of all earnings of a child/young person who is still in full time education. £15 disregard for a lone parent £10 (£5 each) for a couple, £5 for a single claimant. £15 for a couple unemployed two or more years

  16–18 year olds

  Housing Benefit General Regulations 1987 (No. 1971)

  April 1988

  Dependant child's or young person's capital not treated as belonging to claimant

  16–18

  Housing Benefit General Regulations 1987 (No. 1971)

  August 1988

  Definition of "youth training scheme" introduced into regulations

  16–19

  SI 1988/1227

  September 1988

  Cessation of entitlement to income support for people under 18 years old except for those in certain specified categories.

  16–17

  Social Security Act 1988 Income Support (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1988.

  September 1988

  A young person who has ceased full time education can nonetheless continue to be treated as a child for a short period after the terminal date if he is registered for work or for the youth training scheme.

  16–17

  SI 1988/1227 Social Security Act 1988.

  September 1988

  Period when most young people are ineligible for Income Support on leaving relevant education extended.

  Single people aged 16–17 and couples both of whom aged less than 18 who are required to be available for work.

  Income Support (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1988—SI 1988 No. 1228.

  September 1988

  Introduction of employment training; training premium and training bonus not taken into account for Income Support purposes.

  18–25

  Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 Income Support (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1988.

  April 1989

  Increase in personal allowances by 50p in excess of the amount needed to cover inflation.

  All young people aged 1673x2013;17 on Income Support, and parents claiming for 16–18 year olds.

  The Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1989—SI 1989 No. 43

  April 1989

  Increase in personal allowances by 50p in excess of the amount needed to cover inflation.

  All young people aged 16–18 who are independently liable for housing costs and therefore able to claim Housing Benefit.

  The Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1989—SI 1989 No. 43.

  April 1989

  Increase in personal allowances by 50p in excess of the amount needed to cover inflation.

  For Family Credit, parents claiming for 16–17 year olds inclusive.

  The Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1989—SI 1989 No. 43.

  June 1989

  Extra help for 16 and 17 year olds in receipt of Income Support who have to live independently. This group will get the personal allowance normally appropriate to 18–24 year olds.

  16–17

  Family Credit and Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1989. SI 1034.

  June 1989

  All 16–17 year old Housing Benefit claimants will get the same Personal Allowance as 18–24 year olds.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1989.

  882

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund in the current financial year of restoring the earnings-related supplement on the basis which applied before the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 for unemployed people only; what would be the saving in tax and other benefits; and how many males and females would benefit;

  (2) what is the current reduced rate of national insurance contribution for (a) married women and (b) widows; how many are still paying contributions at this rate, and what is the forecast for 1990–91; how many would otherwise be paying at the rate of nil per cent., five per cent. and seven per cent.; and what is the estimated cost to the national insurance fund in the current financial year;

  (3) whether he will bring up to date for the current financial year the information given in his answer of 10 December 1986, Official Report, column 204, to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, concerning the distribution of incomes and national insurance contributions, adding (a) the saving on the abolition of the reduced rate contribution and (b) the numbers contracted-in and contracted-out together with their contributions;

  (4) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated income of the national insurance fund from national insurance contributions in the current financial year, the income which would accrue if the upper earnings limit on all contributions is removed and the income which would be lost if (i) the contribution rate for single persons is reduced to 5·5 per cent., (ii) the rate for married persons is dropped to 4 per cent., (iii) £3,000 is deducted from earned income for contribution purposes, rising to £6,000 for a contributor with a non-earning spouse and (iv) the reductions in (i) to (iii) are in operation at the same time;

  whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those contracted-in and for those contracted-out, the national insurance contributions rates, including the class 2 and class 4 contributions and the reduced rate, in 1989–90 together with (i) the total number in each category, their sex and their maritial status and (ii) the aggregate contributions in each category and the earnings to which they relate;

  (6) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those below and those above pensionable age the estimated number of earned incomes subject to employers' national insurance contributions in steps of £1,000 between £15,000 and £25,000 and in £5,000 steps thereafter, showing single persons and one-earner and two-earner married couples together with the amount collected;

  (7) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of male and female contributors expected to pay national insurance contributions (a) in
  884
  the current financial year, and (b) in 1978–79, broken down into each class and at each rate together with the numbers contracted in and contracted out; and if he will add his forecast of the amount paid or due in each case at current and 1989–90 prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the figures for the expected yield of national insurance contributions in the current year, as stated in the oral answer of 3 July to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway),Official Report, column 11, and in the written answer of the same date to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), Official Report, column 40, were calculated, what the actual yield is expected to be; and whether he will publish in the Official Report a table accounting for the difference between the expected yield and the estimate of £27,887 million given in the Government Actuary's report on the 1988 Uprating Order (Cm. 537).

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 July]: The estimates of the expected net yield of national insurance contributions, as stated in the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 3 July at column 11, and the estimates of national insurance fund contributions as stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 3 July at column 40 were calculated by the Government Actuary and are consistent. The figures differ because the estimated total net yield of national insurance contributions at column 11 includes the National Health Service allocation, which is paid out of contributions and meets part for the cost of the National Health Service. The NHS allocation is not paid into the national insurance fund. The total amount of money collected by contributions is equal to the sum of the national insurance fund's contribution income which are given at column 40 and the National Health Service allocation. Both estimates were consistent with Budget estimates of national insurance contributions.

  A full reconciliation of the estimates published in the Government Actuary's report on the 1988 Uprating and Rerating Orders (Cm. 537) and the estimates published on the 3 July 1989 in the Official Report is contained in the table.

  The recently announced extra growth in the numbers of personal pensions means that the Budget estimates of the net yield of contributions in the final line of the table and the net income of the national insurance fund from contributions, but not the estimates of the NHS allocation, might be about £2 billion less than previously estimated. Fuller details of these, and other, estimate changes that will have occurred since the Budget will be published in the autumn statement.
  885

  Estimated net yield from National Insurance contributions and contributions income of the National Insurance fund Great Britain 1989–90

  £ million

  Source of estimate

  Estimated net income from contributions of the National Insurance fund

  Estimated National Health Service allocation

  Estimated net yield from contributions

  Government Actuary's Report on the Uprating and Rerating Orders estimates excluding State Scheme premiums (Cm. 537)

  27,887

  4,084

  31,973

  Government Actuary's Report estimates including State Scheme premiums (Cm. 537)1

  28,137

  4,084

  32,223

  Government Actuary's Report estimates restated to nearest £100 million (Cm. 537)

  28,100

  4,100

  32,200

  Changes caused by faster earnings growth compared to Cm. 5372

  +500

  +100

  +600

  Other estimating changes

  +400

  —

  +400

  Effect of Budget Proposals3

  -800

  -200

  -1,000

  Budget Estimates4

  28,200

  4,000

  32,300

  Notes

  All estimates are net of Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay and include, except where stated otherwise, State scheme premiums. (All Budget estimates are rounded to the nearest £100 million: figures do not add up to totals due to rounding.)

  1 State scheme premiums were estimated to be £250 million in 1989–90 in the Government Actuary's Report (Cm. 537). State scheme premiums are included in estimated net yield of contributions and in the estimates of the National Insurance Fund's income from contributions. The Fund's estimated income form contributions was given as £28·1 billion on this basis in the answer to the honourable member at Official Report, 12 July at Column 504.

  2 The Government Actuary in preparing his report on the Uprating and Rerating orders was instructed to assume that average earnings would rise by 7·5 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1989–90. The estimates reflect more up to date estimates of earnings growth in 1989–90 which were used when the Budget estimates were framed. Estimate given in Official Report, July 3 at Column 40.

  3 Estimates were published in the Financial Memorandum to the House of Lords Print of the Social Security Bill. The full cost of the Budget changes on the National Insurance Fund given at Official Report, July 3 at Column 40 was calculated as £800 million foregone contributions income arising from the Budget changes to primary Class I contributions and £200 million extra expenditure arising from the abolition of the retirement pension earnings rule.

  4 The estimate of net contributions collected in 1989–90 was given as "more than £32 billion" in the Official Report, 3 July 1989 Column 11 and the estimate of the National Insurance Fund's income from contributions (£28,200 million) was given in Official Report, 3 July 1989 at Column 40. These estimates are on a Great Britain basis: estimates in the Financial Statement and Budget Report were on a United Kingdom basis.

SCOTLAND

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many right-to-buy sales of(a) detached houses, (b) semi-detached houses, (c) terraced houses, (d) flats or maisonettes and (e) four in a block type dwellings by each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole were completed during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The breakdown requested was not collected prior to 1986. Information collected centrally prior to 1986 does not differentiate between sales under the right-to-buy provisions and

  Local Authority Right to Buy sales, Scotland, 1980–81 to 1988–89. Value of discount (£000)1

  District

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Berwickshire

  112

  236

  225

  314

  612

  234

  791

  535

  1,195

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  19

  521

  535

  1,164

  1,630

  949

  950

  1,362

  1,774

  Roxburgh

  n.a.

  827

  449

  846

  1,344

  644

  1,059

  1,573

  2,311

  Tweeddale

  n.a.

  341

  282

  367

  229

  207

  228

  399

  327

  Clackmannan

  558

  501

  541

  1,267

  1,079

  769

  966

  2,447

  4,110

  Falkirk

  294

  1,413

  3,419

  5,521

  4,778

  3,943

  4,139

  8,351

  14,223

  Stirling

  192

  304

  552

  1,987

  2,034

  1,766

  2,803

  3,539

  5,270

  Annandale and Eskdale

  71

  1,047

  915

  657

  707

  788

  897

  1,387

  1,989

  Nithsdale

  226

  1,285

  1,056

  1,190

  961

  1,397

  2,020

  2,831

  4,418

  Stewartry

  359

  705

  392

  238

  411

  370

  476

  906

  795

  Wigtown

  46

  1,047

  438

  851

  728

  599

  698

  1,009

  1,287

  Dunfermline

  6

  3,521

  3,252

  5,436

  4,142

  3,163

  2,963

  5,535

  8,854

  Kirkcaldy

  1,553

  812

  2,614

  3,470

  4,902

  5,342

  3,647

  5,632

  8,140

  North East Fife

  783

  1,596

  2,133

  2,145

  1,517

  1,654

  2,000

  2,398

  3,340

  Aberdeen

  n.a.

  1,170

  5,328

  7,007

  8,721

  5,353

  4,656

  6,435

  9,574

  Banff and Buchan

  705

  6089

  1,406

  2,433

  2,817

  2,866

  2,411

  2,381

  3,208

  Gordon

  n.a.

  816

  1,565

  2,710

  2,225

  1,320

  1,604

  1,065

  928

  Kincardine and Deeside

  637

  746

  738

  879

  703

  1,028

  629

  787

  773

  Moray

  567

  1,326

  1,034

  2,090

  2,716

  2,562

  2,468

  3,288

  4,323

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  n.a.

  524

  140

  240

  159

  144

  449

  424

  567

  886
  voluntary sales to sitting tenants. Tables giving the information available have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of right-to-buy discounts in thousands of pounds by each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information collected centrally prior to 1986 does not differentiate between sales under the right-to-buy provisions and voluntary sales to sitting tenants. The available information is set out in the following table.
  887

  District

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Caithness

  125

  682

  502

  507

  423

  559

  514

  943

  839

  Inverness

  n.a.

  1,264

  1,371

  1,148

  772

  1,325

  1,040

  1,311

  1,871

  Lochaber

  54

  303

  242

  332

  380

  382

  882

  1,276

  1,337

  Nairn

  n.a.

  297

  204

  222

  401

  223

  231

  169

  259

  Ross and Cromarty

  169

  833

  496

  729

  388

  519

  851

  743

  792

  Skye and Lochalsh

  109

  144

  66

  70

  143

  177

  226

  174

  344

  Sutherland

  140

  212

  144

  136

  81

  154

  132

  255

  240

  East Lothian

  n.a.

  623

  3,558

  2,820

  4,073

  2,471

  3,218

  7,419

  9,161

  Edinburgh

  3,988

  5,561

  6,066

  7,479

  8,395

  10,101

  7,362

  16,219

  38,827

  Midlothian

  n.a.

  531

  3,022

  4,246

  3,034

  2,255

  2,293

  4,393

  8,268

  West Lothian

  1,217

  865

  1,209

  2,130

  1,949

  2,345

  2,277

  3,738

  6,801

  Argyll and Bute

  8

  674

  794

  1,160

  1,091

  1,392

  1,359

  1,400

  1,594

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  425

  393

  244

  523

  413

  296

  140

  219

  619

  Clydebank

  n.a.

  8

  744

  691

  544

  822

  1,507

  2,706

  6,213

  Clydesdale

  n.a.

  230

  199

  360

  390

  759

  913

  1,359

  3,864

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  128

  232

  126

  346

  253

  507

  817

  1,273

  2,334

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  155

  504

  276

  493

  356

  435

  1,197

  1,072

  n.a.

  Cunninghame

  1,451

  983

  858

  1,169

  1,827

  1,818

  2,647

  5,643

  8,757

  Dumbarton

  n.a.

  325

  636

  796

  856

  787

  1,101

  1,978

  4,573

  East Kilbride

  44

  410

  188

  170

  226

  335

  454

  633

  1,044

  Eastwood

  490

  436

  232

  296

  367

  235

  660

  827

  1,003

  Glasgow

  n.a.

  1,660

  13,854

  8,169

  6,223

  8,106

  10,989

  27,703

  46,086

  Hamilton

  161

  411

  1,751

  1,275

  1,442

  1,447

  2,664

  6,377

  8,411

  Inverclyde

  262

  550

  819

  1,338

  1,416

  2,907

  2,176

  3,512

  3,594

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  n.a.

  928

  464

  1,400

  1,238

  1,613

  2,302

  3,020

  6,037

  Kyle and Carrick

  1,505

  627

  1,335

  2,101

  2,553

  3,270

  4,455

  7,126

  9,176

  Monklands

  n.a.

  550

  839

  674

  687

  1,176

  3,117

  1,709

  n.a.

  Motherwell

  96

  912

  1,471

  1,406

  1,423

  2,570

  2,948

  5,894

  9,972

  Renfrew

  n.a.

  2,319

  4,617

  3,166

  3,443

  4,048

  4,917

  12,722

  19,116

  Strathkelvin

  500

  1,603

  1,087

  1,429

  1,025

  1,761

  2,384

  4,525

  6,487

  Angus

  349

  1,567

  1,827

  2,843

  2,931

  2,309

  2,274

  3,235

  3,978

  Dundee

  240

  744

  1,410

  1,581

  3,134

  3,246

  3,348

  5,915

  9,135

  Perth and Kinross

  1,191

  1,901

  3,839

  3,015

  2,879

  2,301

  2,336

  3,546

  5,303

  Orkney

  338

  441

  164

  96

  97

  116

  308

  368

  564

  Shetland

  n.a.

  470

  426

  444

  232

  285

  308

  453

  523

  Western Isles

  213

  781

  207

  625

  346

  364

  281

  307

  Scotland

  19,484

  50,315

  82,300

  96,199

  97,845

  98,510

  110,598

  192,421

  304,835

  1Including sales tenants on voluntary basis prior to 1986

  n.a. =Not available

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what was the(a) market valuation and (b) actual selling price of (i) detached houses, (ii) semi detatched houses, (iii) terraced houses, (iv) flats or maisonettes, and (v) four-in-a-block type dwellings for each local authority in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The breakdown requested was not collected prior to 1986. Tables giving the information available have been placed in the House Library.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many joint consultative committees exist within the Greater Glasgow health board; and what is the management representation on each.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are two joint consultative committees at board level. The management representation on both comprises the chairman of the health board, the vice-chairman, one other board member, the general manager, the director of personnel, the director of administration, the director of finance (as required), the chief administrative medical officer and the chief area nursing officer. There are also a number of other local joint consultative committees below board level.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the conferences attended by the general
  888
  manager of Greater Glasgow health board since his appointment; what was the location and duration; and what were his expenses for each conference.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the health board.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a list of hospital visits made by the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board in each of the past 12 months;

  (2) if he will publish a list of hospital visits made by the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board in each of the past 12 months;

  (3) if he will publish a list of the visits made to hospitals by members of Greater Glasgow health board other than the chairman and general manager, in each of the past 24 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the attendance record of the members of the Greater Glasgow health board for the past two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of members of the Greater Glasgow health board and indicate the part of the city in which they reside; and if he will state their jobs and ages.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:
  889

  Name

  Area of residence

  Occupation

  Dr. T. J. Thomson, CBE

  Jordanhill

  Retired consultant physician

  Mrs J. E. Cameron

  Bearsden

  Housewife

  Rev. R. D. M. Campbell

  Newton Mearns

  Minister of religion

  Dr. W.K.Davidson, CBE

  Stepps

  General medical practitioner

  Miss E. Donnachie

  Johnstone

  Director of midwifery services

  Mr. A. D. Garland

  Cathcart

  Chartered quantity surveyor

  Mrs A. Gilchrist

  Newton Mearns

  Director, Robert Gilchrist and Son Ltd.

  Lady S. Goold

  Clarkston

  Housewife

  Mr. P. W. Hoist

  Maryhill

  Insulation contractor, managing director

  Mrs. A. Jarvis

  Lenzie

  Company director

  Mr. B. A. Maan

  Pollok

  Company (managing) director

  Mr. A. J. Mack

  Cathcart

  Consultant surgeon

  Mr. C. MacKay

  Bearsden

  Consultant surgeon

  Prof. R. M. Mackie

  Bearsden

  Professor of dermatology

  Mr. C. Macreath

  Troon

  Solicitor

  Mrs M. McGarry

  Clydebank

  Housewife

  Mr. N. M. Naftalin

  Newton Mearns

  Solicitor

  Mr. J. A. Peel

  Bearsden

  Medical laboratory scientific officer

  Their ages range from 37 to 66.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms and conditions, including salary and fringe benefits, of the general manager of Greater Glasgow health board; and what percentage increase in salary he has received in each year since his appointment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The remuneration and conditions of service of hearth board general managers are set out in circulars SHHD/DGM(1986)37, SHHD/DGM(1986)40, SHHD/DGM(1987)18, SHHD/DGM(1987)21, SHHD/ DGM(1987)71 and SHHD/DGM(1988)64. Copies of these circulars are being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total of expenses claimed by the general manager of Greater Glasgow health board in each year since his appointment.

  Mr Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally and is a matter for the health board to deal with in conformity with guidance issued in 1985 by the Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses to date Greater Glasgow health board has received from its advertisements of works' contracts in the official journal of the European Communities dated 30 June.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board has received expressions of interest from a number of sources.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last joint consultative committee meeting within Greater Glasgow health board at which clinical biochemists and other scientific staff raised questions about the board's future plans for alternative methods of delivering pharmacy, radiology and laboratory services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Wednesday 14 June 1989.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Greater Glasgow health board took independent legal advice or sought legal advice through his office about where dilictual liability falls in the contract documents which have been prepared in respect of the works contracts advertised in the official journal of the European Communities dated 30 June 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such contract documents have been prepared.
  890
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Greater Glasgow health board decided that clinical services might benefit from being tested in the market place before receiving a report of the strategic review undertaken for them by the laboratory consultants in Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are expected to apply a market test to services where advantage may accrue from competitive tendering.

  Hospital Visits
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of visits to hospitals undertaken by the relevant junior Minister in each of the past twenty-four months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My visits were as follows:

  Hospital

  Date visited

  1987

  Seafield Hospital, Ayr

  28 July

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  15 September

  Annan Hospital, Annan

  22 September

  Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow

  30 September

  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow

  30 September

  Lennox Castle, Glasgow

  30 September

  Woodilee Hospital, Glasgow

  30 September

  State Hospital, Carstairs

  14 October

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  21 December

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow

  23 December

  1988

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  22 February

  Ross Hall Hospital, Glasgow

  22 February

  Biggart Hospital, Prestwick

  29 February

  Lennox Castle, Glasgow

  6 June

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  22 July

  Princes Street Day Hospital, Stirling

  7 September

  Kincardine O'Neil War Memorial Hospital,Torphins

  14 September

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  15September

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  20 September

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  5 October

  Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow

  1 December

  1989

  Lennox Castle, Glasgow

  23 January

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh

  6 February

  Borders District General Hospital

  17 March

  Haylodge Hospital, Peebles

  17 March

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  20 March

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  20 March

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  10 May

  Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

  24 July

  Health Boards
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he or his responsible Minister personally interview prospective chairpersons of health boards before deciding on their appointments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not the practice of my right hon. and learned Friend to appoint to such important posts persons of whom he has inadequate knowledge.

  Dog Bites
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were treated in the Greater Glasgow health board area for dog bites for the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for the last year for which figures are available the number of physiotherapists, radiographers, chiropodists and nutritionists employed by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provisional figures for whole-time equivalent numbers of qualified staff employed in the NHS in Scotland at 31 March 1989 are given in the table for physiotherapists, radiographers (including both diagnostic and therapeutic services), chiropodists and dietitians. Separate figures for nutritionists are not available centrally.

  WTE

  Physiotherapists

  1,211·6

  Radiographers

  973·6

  Chiropodists

  516·8

  Dietitians

  211·5

  Litter
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to deal with the problem of litter in public places; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are determined to take vigorous and effective action to deal with the problem of litter. I am today publishing details of our proposals for legislation designed to improve the appearance and standards of cleanliness of public places in Scotland, and to enable and encourage local authorities, other landowners and individual citizens to take more effective action against litter and those who drop it. These proposals are broadly similar to those published on 20 July by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Transport and for Wales to apply in England and Wales.

  Our proposals include:
  a power for district and islands councils to introduce fixed penalty schemes for littering;an increase in the maximum fine for littering under the Litter Act 1983 from £400 to £1,000;a duty on local authorities to keep clean all land in their beneficial occupancy or control, open to the air and to which the public have access; this duty would include both litter and dog faeces;892 a similar duty on certain landowners with statutory functions;a power for district and islands councils to impose by designation order a similar duty on owners of certain defined categories of land in other ownership (such as car parks, shopping precincts and forecourts of commercial premises);rationalising street cleaning responsibilities by making district and islands councils wholly responsible for cleaning of all roads (except motorways);a statutory code of practice to which all those under the duty would be required to have regard, specifying standards of cleanliness and advising on the best means of achieving these;a system of enforcement whereby (a) an aggrieved citizen can apply for a court order directing a local authority, or any other landowner under the duty to keep clean, to discharge the duty; (b) the local authority has power to issue litter abatement notices requiring a private landowner to discharge his duty; and (c) the local authority has default powers to carry out cleaning work itself, and recover costs; and the extension of section 1 of the Litter Act 1983 to all areas covered by the duty to keep clean, and the widening of its scope.
  I am arranging for copies of the consultation document to be placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also being sent to interested parties, inviting comments by 29 September. Subject to responses to the consultation, the Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested concerning statutory instruments prepared in the Scottish Office for the calendar years from 1984 to date is as follows:

  Year

  Total orders issued

  Negative orders issued

  Affirmative orders issued

  1984

  230

  100

  7

  1985

  190

  93

  22

  1986

  210

  90

  12

  1987

  255

  100

  11

  1988

  281

  154

  13

  19891

  139

  73

  9

  1 to date

  Sand-eels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been undertaken since 1 January into the sand-eel population in waters around Scotland, and in particular, around Shetland.

  Mr. Lang
  Regular samples have been taken of commercial catches both at Shetland and off the west coast of Scotland since the fishery began in April. In addition, a survey of the spawning grounds around Shetland was undertaken in February 1989, and larval and 0-group sand-eels around Shetland were assessed in May and June. A survey of the fishing grounds at Shetland is also to be undertaken later this summer.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to increase the amount and extent of research being undertaken by his Department into the
  893
  sand-eel population in the waters around Scotland, and in particular around Shetland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Scientists from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland marine laboratory regularly sample commercial catches of sand-eels in Scottish waters, and earlier this year undertook surveys of larval and 0-group sand-eels and the spawning grounds around Shetland. A further survey of the Shetland fishing grounds is planned for later in the summer. The programme for further research on sand-eels in 1990 and subsequent years is currently under consideration.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, following from his announcement on licensing arrangements for the Shetland sand-eel fishery, whether he will estimate the level of fishing which the Shetland sand-eel stocks will be able to support during the first six months of 1990.

  Mr. Lang
  An assessment will be made before the end of the year of the appropriate level of fishing for 1990.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to introduce a licensing system for the sand-eel fishery in the Minch similar to the one recently introduced for the Shetland sand-eel fishery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A licensing scheme for sand-eel fisheries in Scottish inshore waters (including the Minch) was introduced with effect from 1 July 1989 under the Sand-eel Licensing Order 1989. The detailed arrangements applying to west coast sand-eel fisheries for 1989 were announced on 13 July by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is considering the introduction of alternative methods of estimating sand-eel stocks to the present retrospective method, virtual population analysis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  New methods for assessing fish stocks are continually under development and scientists at the Aberdeen marine laboratory are in the process of refining the present methods for sand-eels using detailed fishing effort data and the results of research surveys. Given the data presently available, however, there is no known method of estimating the sand-eel stock size that is likely in the near future to provide a more accurate assessment than is obtained by virtual population analysis.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage of stock of 1 group sand-eels that was taken by the Shetland fishery prior to and after the end of June in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested, which has been derived from the most recent assessment by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, is as follows:

  Percentage of stock of 1-group taken in Shetland fishery

  Before end of June

  After end of June

  1974

  5·0

  5·8

  1975

  2·8

  1·0

  1976

  11·9

  4·1

  894

  Before end of June

  After end of June

  1977

  18·9

  3·0

  1978

  23·0

  3·8

  1979

  17·1

  3·4

  1980

  4·0

  1·8

  1981

  15·1

  4·5

  1982

  22·4

  1·6

  1983

  10·0

  3·1

  1984

  6·0

  1·6

  1985

  10·7

  2·5

  1986

  6·3

  1·1

  1987

  11·1

  1·4

  1988

  4·1

  0·4

  Water Pollution
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses have been received on his Department's consultative proposals for tighter controls over the most dangerous substances entering water; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office proposals were set out in a consultation paper issued on 19 December 1988. Responses were received from 20 organisations representing industrial, environmental, agricultural, water and local authority interests. A summary has been placed in the Library.

  The respondents generally gave a strong welcome to the Government's proposals for the principle of a unified approach involving the use of both environmental quality standards and technology-based emission standards for controlling discharges of the most dangerous substances. Comments were invited and received on a number of matters of detail, and these have been taken into account in the conclusions reached.

  A key element of the proposals which was welcomed by many respondents, was the drawing up of a priority Red List of dangerous substances. The provisional list included in the consultation paper has been slightly amended in the light of the consultations and of new and corrected data now received. The initial priority Red List will be:

  Substance

  CAS number

  Mercury and its compounds

  Cadmium and its compounds

  gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane

  00058–89–9

  DDT

  00050–29–3

  Pentachlorophenol

  00087–86–5

  Hexachlorobenzene

  00118–74–1

  Hexachlorobutadiene

  00087–68–3

  Aldrin

  00309–00–2

  Dieldrin

  00060–57–1

  Endrin

  00072–20–8

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls

  01336–36–3

  Dichlorvos

  00062–73–7

  1,2-Dichloroethane

  00107–06–2

  Trichlorobenzene

  12002–48–1

  Atrazine

  01912–24—

  Simazine

  00122–34–9

  Tributyltin compounds

  Triphenyltin compounds

  Trifluoralin

  01582–09–8

  Fenitrothion

  00122–14–5

  Azinphos-methyl

  00086–50–0

  Malathion

  00121–75–5

  Endosulfan

  00115–29–7

  This list is the same as that announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the

  895
  Environment in the House on 10 April, (Official Report, volume 150, column 405). In making his decision, my hon. Friend took account of the comments and suggestions expressed in the Scottish consultation exercise.

  Further substances may be added to the list from time to time where there are sound scientific reasons for doing so. These will be identified along the broad lines set out in the annex to the consultation paper. The selection scheme is being further developed and modified in the light of comments received. Candidate substances identified by the scheme will be subject to a second-stage assessment, taking particular account of the risk posed for the aquatic environment, and to consultation before addition to the list.

  Those respondents to the consultative paper who commented on the mechanism of control all favoured the principle that discharges from prescribed processes should be subject to control by the Scottish river purification authorities rather than controlled centrally. Strict environmental quality standards should be set for all Red List substances where they do not exist at present. River purification authorities' discharge consents will ensure that these standards are met as a minimum requirement. Enabling powers for this purpose are available in schedule 23 to the Water Act 1989, which substitutes new and amended provisions in part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Such discharges would be subject to a requirement, to be introduced progressively for existing plant, that the process should be operated according to the best available technology not entailing excessive costs with a view to minimising discharges of the most dangerous substances.

  We shall be issuing shortly a further consultation paper which considers how the work of the river purification authorities in dealing with Red List substances should be co-ordinated with that of other pollution control agencies.

  The 1988 consultation paper discussed the question of inputs of Red List substances to water through indirect or diffuse sources. Several respondents agreed with the paper that diffuse sources are an important input for many dangerous substances. After considering the comments received, we still believe that existing controls over the supply, use and disposal of substances should generally be sufficient to deal with any potential problem from diffuse sources, but we shall be asking river purification authorities to put in hand more rigorous monitoring for priority substances and we are considering the need for new powers relating to the storage and more general use of certain hazardous substances.

  Measures are also required for controls over discharges to sewers where these discharges contain Red List substances. We shall be making proposals for how this should be done in the consultation paper referred to earlier.

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what staffing and recruitment initiatives he is taking to ensure that the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston, has sufficient resources to manage the research work on a warhead for a new air-launched missle.
  896
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Every effort is made to ensure that the atomic weapons establishment has sufficient manpower for its priority tasks, including where appropriate work related to possible future systems. Special pay additions have been introduced, and major recruitment campaigns are maintained. The situation is kept under close and careful review.

  Exercise Migrant Merlin
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of, and what numbers are involved in, exercise Migrant Merlin to take place in October.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Exercise Migrant Merlin is 15 Infantry Brigade's annual exercise and will be held between 7 and 21 October on Salisbury plain. It is designed to provide battalion and brigade level training in essential wartime tasks. These include area defence, observation, patrolling, and limited attack exercising. A maximum of 3,000 troops are expected to participate at any one time; with the exceptions of the brigade headquarters, these will all be Territorial Army personnel.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in his Department's review, with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The most significant element of MOD relocation planning has revolved around two major groups within the procurement executive.

  The proposed move of 1,500 quality assurance posts from Woolwich and Bromley to Teesside was announced in the House on 9 March 1989. Consultations are continuing with the trade union side about the move, which would take place over the period 1993–95.

  A feasibility study report of relocating some 3,500 posts in the land and air systems controllerates is currently with Ministers. Given reasonably early agreement on site selection, the effective date for these moves could be in the timescale 1993–95.

  Additionally, a number of smaller moves, totalling about 1,000 posts from London, have been agreed (and some have taken place) since the 1988 relocation initiative.

  The MOD will continue to pursue a policy of relocating work from London and the south-east to less advantaged regions whenever possible and the TU side will continue to be consulted on all relocation studies.

  RAF Depots
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF aircraft storage depots in Britain.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are four RAF aircraft storage depots in Britain, which are located at Abingdon, Kemble, St. Athan and Shawbury.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF equipment supply depots in Britain.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are three RAF equipment supply depots in Britain which are located at Carlisle, Quedgley and Stafford.
  897
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF petroleum supply depots in Britain.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the transfer of former Department of Energy depots to the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1989, there are now some 44 RAF petroleum supply depots at various locations within the United Kingdom. However, it would not be in the public interest to give details of these sites.

  USAF Petroleum Depots
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States Air Force petroleum supply depots in Britain.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no United States petroleum supply depots in the United Kingdom. Storage facilities are made available as necessary at RAF depots.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the increase in project cost for the Sonar 2054, set out in the major equipment projects tables in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" and the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I presume that the hon. Gentleman is questioning the difference in the figures given in the Statement on the Defence Estimates (SDE) 88 and SDE 89. The £310 million given in SDE 88 represents the then approved programme. The £400 million given in SDE 89 includes further production orders and pay and price variations.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the slippage of one year in the in-service date for the type 2400 submarine, set out in the major equipment projects tables in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" and the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The slippage of one year to the delivery date for the type 2400 submarine is due, first, to industrial action at VSEL during 1988; and secondly, because of the number of technical problems with new to service equipment on this, the first of a new class of diesel-electric submarines.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the provision of a constant speed drive generating unit on the new European fighter aircraft; whether he has considered the Lucas system and that of Bendix/Ferranti; and if he has considered the respective weights and efficiency of power supplies in reaching a decision between the competing systems.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom and our EFA partners, in conjunction with the EFA prime contractor (Eurofighter), are in the process of evaluating the merits of the competing bids for the EFA main generating system development contract. All relevant factors, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), are being taken into account and a decision is expected in the very near future. In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the respective merits of either bid.
  898
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his counterpart in the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss progress on the contract awards for the EFA project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been reached on the development contract for the European fighter aircraft radar.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the development and production of two different versions of the European Fighter Aircraft, based upon two different radar systems.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Members.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out at RAF station Finningley, along the lines of those carried out at RA F station Manston, in respect of using RAF station Finningley as a joint military-civil airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  RAF Finningley is a busy training station and the scope for civil flying is limited. My Department has not undertaken any studies on the greater civil use of the airfield but remains ready to discuss any viable proposals with the appropriate authorities.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the guidelines issued by the Property Services Agency containing advice on the use of chlorofluorocarbons on the Government estate extend to cooling systems for munitions storage, Her Majesty's ships and submarines and communications network; and what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant material and chlorofluorocarbon 11 from such cooling systems.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The guidelines issued by the Property Services Agency (18 May 1989) on the use of CFCs in Government estate contain principles which were already being implemented within MOD. Government policy is being applied to CFCs in Her Majesty's ships and submarines and communications network. The means of ensuring the safe disposal of CFCs already in NIOD possession is the subject of current discussion.

  Trident
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Trident programme continues to progress to time and to budget.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress on the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. David Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how military and reconnaissance aircraft were disposed of at sea, following British nuclear tests; and what purposes were served by such dumping.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am not aware that any British military or reconnaissance aircraft were disposed of at sea. However, it was noted that a Grumman Avenger aircraft from HMS Warrior at operation Grapple was lost overboard in an accident.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what manner water was imported into Christmas Island during British nuclear tests there in the 1950s; from where; and how it was monitored.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Royal Navy ships fitted with special distillation equipment delivered on average 100 tons of fresh water per day for use ashore on Christmas Island. This was in addition to the main source of supply of treated surface water in which no radioactivity associated with the nuclear tests was detected. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 7 November 1988 columns 31–32 and 31 October 1988 column 528 which answered similar questions. The RAF was mainly responsible for monitoring all water and ensuring that it met public health standards.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the 12th Independent Field Squadron are now deceased; and what information he has as to the causes of death.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question on 22 December 1988 at column 376.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Fijian forces have been studied by the National Radiological Protection Board; and if he has received representations from the Fijian Government about the health and welfare of their nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Fijian forces were not included in the study carried out by the NRPB and ICRF. I am not aware of any representations from the Fijian Government about the health and welfare of their nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release details of unit/service mortality amongst British nuclear test veterans and the causes of this mortality.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost and, depending on the level of detail, could in any case be subject to the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he draws with regard to his policy towards the compensation of British nuclear test veterans from the report of Dr. Karl Morgan of the health physics division of Oak Ridge national laboratory in Tennessee, dealing with the consequences of United States veterans' exposure during nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s.
  900
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Government policy on this matter is based on the conclusions reached in the National Radiological Protection Board report released last year, which concluded that no harm due to ionising radiation was suffered by participants in the United Kingdom nuclear test programme. However, the Government would be ready to pay compensation to those participants who suffer ill health from a disease if it could be shown, even on a balance of probabilities, that the incidence of that disease was linked to participation in the United Kingdom nuclear test programme. Individual reports, such as that to which the hon. Member refers, will not change Government policy unless they influence the NRPB conclusions; that is a matter for the NRPB who are the independent experts on these matters. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23 May 1989, at column 464.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have taken place into beta dose erythema conditions amongst British nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No studies of beta dose erythema have been carried out on British nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the function of the RAF balloon unit during British nuclear tests in the 1950s; to what proximity members of the unit approached ground zero; and with what frequency.

  Mr. Clark
  The function of the balloon unit was to operate a balloon system for hoisting devices under test to the prescribed altitude ready for detonation. Members of the balloon unit were withdrawn to a safe distance of not less than 12·5 km from ground zero at the time of detonation. After detonation balloon unit personnel returned to ground zero only when the induced radiation had fallen to such levels that the exposures were not sensibly greater than zero.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which military unit or squadron spent the most time in active service in the Christmas islands, during British nuclear tests there(a) cumulatively and (b) consecutively.

  Mr. Clark
  HMS Resolution remained in active service in the Christmas islands during the British nuclear tests from December 1957 until June 1964. 73 E and M Squadron RE remained in service from December 1957 to January 1964 and the RAF Unit Christmas Island was present from October 1957 until June 1964.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who undertook the descaling of desalination tanks on Christmas Island, during British nuclear tests there in the 1950s; where these samples were taken for examination; and if the results of these examinations are publicly available.

  Mr. Clark
  The storage of drinking water at Christmas Island was the responsibility of the Army. The checking of the quality of fresh and raw water from ground sources and shore distillers prior to and in storage was the responsibility of the RAF medical service. There was no reason to descale the desalination tanks since they were only for the storage of clean potable water. The RAF medical service reports, under normal rules, would have been destroyed after two years.
  901
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why an operation/biopsy took place on Mr. Andrew Dickson of Wakefield during his active service on Christmas Island; what was the purpose of this operation; and why it took place on the island rather than via referral to Honolulu.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not the policy of this Department to discuss the detail of individual medical cases, which are covered by the rules concerning medical confidentiality. This policy accords with that of the NHS.

  Radiation Contamination
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what threshold of radiation contamination exists with respect to genetic effects.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The assumption is made for radiation protection purposes that there is no threshold for the types of radiation effect that produce mutations in the hereditary information in cells.

  Saudi Offset Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what current proposals have been (i) discussed and (ii) agreed with the Saudi Government offset committee; what are the estimated amounts involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In addition to the venture proposals referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member on 19 June 1989, col 56, I am pleased to say that three further venture proposals have subsequently been put to the Saudi Government offset committee for its consideration.

  As announced in a news release by my Department today the third proposal involves an imaginative series of potential collaborations from Royal Ordnance plc to develop jointly Saudi Arabia's defence industrial infrastructure. The fourth proposes that the United Kingdom company Technicare International Limited and the Saudi company Yusuf Bin Ahmed Kanoo collaborate on setting up a number of computer training centres in Saudi Arabia and number five is for a joint venture between Fryma Fabrics Limited of the United Kingdom and Nafa Enterprises of Riyadh to establish a manufacturing plant in Saudi Arabia to produce polyethylene yarn and tape and also to knit the yarn into agricultural and horticultural netting. All five initial proposals are presently being considered by the Saudi Government offset committee.

  All of the proposals will be the subject of further detailed feasibility studies before implementation and it is not yet possible to give an accurate assessment of the investment which will be involved. The present indication is that the total investment in the five project proposals should be in excess of £100 million over a period of 10 years or more.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of 902
  statutory instruments that were issued by his Department: how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nimrod Airframe
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the Nimrod airframe is likely to remain in RAF service; and whether his Department is currently looking at replacement options.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We expect the Nimrod to give many more years of useful service. The question of a replacement will be addressed at the appropriate time.

  Tornado
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Tornado aircraft have crashed since the aircraft entered service.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since the aircraft entered service, 20 RAF Tornado aircraft have been damaged irreparably in accidents. The public release of aircraft accident statistics for other nations is a matter for the respective Governments.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many senior officials in the Ministry of Defence procurement executive have had previous long-term experience of working in the defence industry or any other manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested is not readily available. The majority of the senior staff in the procurement executive are career civil servants and comparatively few have worked for a prolonged period in industry. However, the commercial experience of staff in the procurement executive is steadily increasing as a result of a substantial programme of interchange with industry and through increased efforts to recruit those who have worked in the defence and other industries.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to appoint more civilians who have had long-term experience working in defence-related industries to the procurement executive.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes. We are already running continuous recruitment campaigns seeking to fill posts at the lower and middle management levels of the procurement executive with people who have worked in industry. At the more senior level, we shall shortly be seeking to recruit two or three project managers with industrial experience.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current target for the employment of civilian specialist computer science staff in the procurement executive;

  (2) what is the total number of civilian specialist computer science staff currently employed in the procurement executive;

  (3) what the target for the employment of civilian staff in the procurement executive in each year between 1980 and 1989;
  903
  (4) what was the total number of civilian staff employed in the procurement executive in each year between 1980 and 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Property Disposal
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the Army establishments, estates or property his Department intend to close or sell in the next five years;

  (2) if he will list the RAF establishment estate or property that his Department intends to close or sell in the next five years;

  (3) if he will list the Royal Navy and Royal Marine shore establishments, estates or property which his Department intends to close and sell in the next five years.

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

  Co-operation Projects (France)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current collaborative projects or co-operative arrangements that involve the French.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A list of the collaborative equipment projects in which both the United Kingdom and France participate, reflecting the position as at 1 March 1989, appears at table 6, chapter 4 of volume 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989.

  In addition, an Anglo-French reciprocal purchasing initiative was launched in September 1987. Under this initiative, we have set up machinery to establish closer links between the two countries and each now publishes its contract opportunities in bulletins available to industry in both countries.

  Nuclear Delivery System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department is giving to the use of the multinational MSOW as a nuclear delivery system.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent study of the capability of the United Kingdom defence industry has been carried out by his Department; and what judgment he has as to which area of domestic defence manufacturing capability should be preserved for strategic reasons.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence keeps the capability of the United Kingdom defence industry under review. Our aim is to achieve value for money in the supply of equipment to our armed forces and our consideration includes, on a case-by-case basis, the advisability of ensuring a continuing United Kingdom source of supply.

  Senior Officials (Appointments)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept by his Department of the number of senior Ministry of Defence officials and senior service personnel who have left his Department to take up appointments in defence-related industries.
  904
  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information is not available.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he or any other Minister in his Department last visited British forces in Hong Kong; and when he or any other Minister from his Department next intends to visit.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The last MOD ministerial visit to Hong Kong was that made by my predecessor in January 1988. A further visit should take place within the next 12 months.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the other helicopter options that are being looked at as an alternative to EH101 to fill the Royal Air Force's battlefield support requirement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In accordance with normal procurement practice, we shall consider all appropriate helicopter types, including—where relevant—combinations of types, in order to determine whether the utility version of the EH101 helicopter continues to represent the most cost-effective solution for meeting the future requirement for support helicopters. This work will be taken forward during the project definition phase of the RAF EH101 programme, the first stage of which will be completed by April 1990.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with representatives of McDonnell Douglas concerning the possible purchase of Apache helicopters for the Army Air Corps.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Army Air Corps or RAF pilots have been involved in any recent trials of the Blackhawk helicopter.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence has not undertaken any recent trials of the Blackhawk. However, a flight observer from A&AEE, Boscombe Down, has flown in a Blackhawk which is used by Rolls-Royce as its flight test vehicle for the RTM 322 engine, as part of the MOD's monitoring of the RTM 322 development.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Army Air Corps personnel or pilots from ETPS, Boscombe Down have recently test flown the AH64 Apache.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A number of Army Air Corps pilots and test pilots from A&AEE, Boscombe Down, have flown the AH64 Apache during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy variant of EH-101 is to be fitted with a ship sonar when it becomes operational.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is intended that the RN anti-submarine warfare (ASW) variant of the EH-101 helicopter will be equipped with sonobuoy systems for the detection of submarines under water Consideration is also being given to fitting an active dipping sonar but no decision on the choice of equipment has yet been taken.

  Mig Crash (Belgium)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any RAF interceptor aircraft were airborne in the vicinity of the pilotless Mig 23 aircraft that crashed in Belgium earlier this month.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Martin Maineth SLAT System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy or RAF have tested or taken part in the testing of the Martin Maineth SLAT system.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Basic Trainer Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in line with his Department's objective of achieving value for money, there has been any recent cost/benefit analysis of his Department's choice of the Tucano basic trainer over the PC-9.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ships (Leasing)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy or RFA vessels are currently leased to other countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the Member for Western Isles on 20 June,Official Report, column 75, (1) whether he plans to issue written guidance to armed service units in respect of poll tax payments in England and Wales;

  (2) if he will publish the written guidance issued to armed service units in respect of poll tax payments in England and Wales.

  Mr. Neubert
  Such guidance has already been issued, and I have placed copies in the Library of the House. It has been widely promulgated within the services and substantially reflected in a practice note published by the Department of the Environment. I have no plans for any further publication.

  United States Defence Secretary
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the subjects discussed in the course of his meetings with Mr. Cheney, United States Secretary for Defence, during his recent official visit to the United States of America.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During his recent visit to Washington my right hon. Friend discussed a wide range of matters of mutual interest with Mr. Cheney.

  Air-to-Surface Missile
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the possible procurement of a tactical air-to-surface missile.
  906
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 17 July at column 71.

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which central American countries have received assistance from his Department in the past three years; and which countries are currently receiving assistance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Belize has had an established programme of military assistance from the Ministry of Defence since independence in 1981 and that assistance continues. In addition, in 1987, one cadet from El Salvador attended the basic officer course at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst.

  Russian Speakers
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel are fluent Russian speakers; and what this figure was in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 162 serving military personnel are qualified as Russian interpreters, of whom 32 serve in the Royal Navy, 94 in the Army and 36 in the Royal Air Force. Records are not held in a form which would enable the historical information requested by the hon. Gentleman to be readily provided, but I understand that the number of Russian interpreters has increased modestly in recent years.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what incentives are currently operating to encourage military personnel to take Russian language training.

  Mr. Neubert
  Financial rewards are provided in the form of lump sum grants for successful completion of the various levels of Russian language training in the services, with smaller grants being awarded upon requalification in that language. Additionally, members of the Services are encouraged to participate in Russian language training provided at voluntary weekend courses at university and other self-help courses, for which some financial assistance is given.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of funding for Russian language training for military personnel, and what it was for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that the detailed information sought by the hon. Gentleman concerning expenditure over the last 10 years is not readily available. However, Russian language training at the Defence School of Languages at Beaconsfield is being provided at a cost of about £420,000 in the current year. There is no reason to believe that this differs to any significant degree from the general level of expenditure in the past.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the efficiency of current technology to ascertain whether nuclear weapons are being carried at sea.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if. pursuant to his answer of 20 July,Official Report, column 322, he will place copies of all the articles and speeches in which Ministers and senior officials have addressed the implications of 1992 for defence procurement in the Library;

  (2) if he will place a copy of the proceedings of the forum held by his Department for industry on the future of defence procurement in Europe in April in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the annual level of production of intermediate-level nuclear waste by his Department for each year prior to 1983 for which data is available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  NATO Exercises (Observers)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the annual cost in 1987 and in 1988 to his Department of providing appropriate facilities for Warsaw pact military personnel to observe NATO military exercises under the auspices of the Stockholm agreement;

  (2) what was the annual cost in 1987 and in 1988 to his Department of providing appropriate facilities to Warsaw pact military personnel to enable them to make challenge inspections of NATO military exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  HMS Dreadnought
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the agreement on charges paid for HMS Dreadnought to be stored at Rosyth.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: Dreadnought has been stored afloat at Rosyth since 1983. Although she occupies a berth inside the basin (ie inside the licensed area) no specific provision was made in the term contract for payment to be made by the Ministry of Defence to BTL by way of berthing charges for her.

  Exercise Wintex 89
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how may home service force personnel took part in Exercise Wintex 89.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: No member of the home service force took part in exercise Wintex 89.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Naval Reserve personnel took part in Exercise Wintex 89.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Over 600 personnel of the Royal Navy Reserve took part in exercise Wintex 89.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army personnel took part in exercise Wintex 89.
  908
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: About 500 personnel of the Territorial Army took part in exercise Wintex 89.

  Venture Glider
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on the type of motor glider selected to replace the Venture at volunteer gliding schools.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [pursuant to the reply, 13 July 1989, column 588]: Following a competition, the Grob 109B motor glider, of GRP construction, has been selected to re-equip the air training corps. An order was placed with Burkhart Grob on 25 July 1989 for 53 aircraft. The order also includes the provision of a fatigue test specimen, training and the supply of spares.

HEALTH

  Regional Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by each regional health authority for each year since 1979 the numbers of staff expressed as a whole-time equivalent and as actual full-time and part-time members in the following categories(a) ancillary, (b) administration and clerical, (c) nurses and midwives and (d) professional and technical.

  Mr. Mellor
  Such information as is available has been placed in the Library. Information for the years 1979 and 1982 (inclusive) is available on a whole-time equivalent basis only.

  "Actual full-time and part-time members" has been interpreted as numbers (headcount).

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current annual expenditure in the National Health Service on management consultants; what have been the comparable figures over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The employment of management consultants is a matter for individual health authorities and their accounts do not separately identify any expenditure consequently incurred.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a list of the community health councils in England together with their expenditure of public funds in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The expenses of community health councils are met by and form part of the total expenditure of the health authorities concerned. Information derived from the annual accounts of district health authorities in England for 1987–88 (the latest year available) have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement about pay in the Health Service.
  909
  Mr. Mellor
  Increases for doctors, nursing and midwifery staff and the professions allied to medicine have been implemented following recommendations of review bodies. Settlements have also been negotiated for certain other groups. Just over 90 per cent. of all NHS staff are covered by these settlements for 1989–90.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to he completed.

  Mr. Mellor
  A team of officials is close to completing a thorough, systematic review of the location of our headquarters work. We expect to have a report of the team's findings shortly.

  Drugs Budgets
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those factors that family practitioner committees will take into account in deciding whether a general practitioner is justified in exceeding his indicative drugs budget.

  Mr. Mellor
  A GP practice will be considered justified in exceeding its indicative drug budget if this should prove necessary to provide patients with the drugs they need.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sanctions regional health authorities will he able to impose should the majority of general practitioners in all or any of their family practitioner committee areas overspend their drugs budgets.

  Mr. Mellor
  Those GPs who overspend their indicative budgets will face disciplinary proceedings only as a last resort and solely when there is clear evidence of over-prescribing which, by definition, would be to the detriment of their patients.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the allocation of drugs budgets to regional health authorities under the reorganisation of the National Health Service will be fixed.

  Mr. Mellor
  Each year each regional health authority will be allocated a firm budget to cover expenditure on medicines in the family practitioner services within the region. The budgets will be set at sensible and realistic levels to ensure that patients receive the medicines they need and that medicines will be paid for at reasonable prices.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, in his proposals for the National Health Service, the allocation of drugs budgets by regional health authorities to family practitioner committees will be in the form of a fixed amount of indicative spending limits.

  Mr. Mellor
  Regional health authorities will allocate their firm budgets for actual expenditure on medicines among their family practitioner committees (FPCs) which will in turn determine individual FPCs' overall indicative prescribing budgets.
  910
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, in his proposals to reorganise the National Health Service, he intends to fix a cash limit for the drugs budget of the family practitioner services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The financial arrangements for drug budgets are set out in working paper 4 of the NHS review series "Indicative Prescribing Budgets for General Medical Pracititioners". The precise mechanisms are still under consideration.

  Eye Test Charges
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current estimated saving from eye test charges; and what was the original estimate.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest estimate of savings in a full year is £90 million (England). The original estimate for the current year was some £70 million.

  Scientists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the Whitley council management side working party on recruitment and retention of scientists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the report of the management side working party on recruitment and retention of scientists is confidential to the management side and will not be published.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a pay review body for medical scientists working in the National Health Service, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 24 July at column 536.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve recruitment and retention of biochemists, physicists, other scientists and clinical psychologists in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the level of remuneration, recruitment and retention of medical scientists working in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 16 June at columns 101–02.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, following the report of the inquiry on the recruitment and retention of physicists, scientists and clinical psychologists, what steps he intends to take to ensure that National Health Service contracts are attractive to scientist graduates and to put right the erosion in their salaries.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 16 June at columns 101–02.

  Skoal Bandits
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his decision concerning the production and sale of Skoal Bandits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are considering the detailed and extensive representations we have received on this matter and we will announce a decision as soon as possible.

  Hospital Physiotherapists (Pay Settlement)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what date the pay settlement for hospital physiotherapists runs.

  Mr. Mellor
  From 1 April.

  Solid Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in the Trent regional health authority which currently store solid radioactive waste on site; and what controls exist for monitoring and ensuring safety.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally. Hospitals are subject to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and guidance on good practice is contained in "Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons Against Ionising Radiations Arising from Medical and Dental Use" issued in 1988 by the health departments, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Health and Safety Executive.

  NHS Staffing
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the last year for which figures are available the number of nutritionists, physiotherapists, radiographers and chiropodists employed by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is shown in the table. "Nutritionists" has been interpreted as dietitians.

  NHS qualified staff in post at 30 September 1987 England

  Whole time equivalents1

  Dietitians

  1,140

  Physiotherapists2

  9,330

  Radiographers

  8,250

  Chiropodists

  2,640

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes Remedial Gymnasts.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review advice given to general practitioners concerning the time for which patients' medical records should be kept and the information to be retained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under present arrangements, doctors are required to keep adequate records of the treatment of their 912
  patients for their patients' lifetimes. After this, the records pass to the local family practitioner committee (FPC) where they are retained for a minimum of three further years. We are currently reviewing these arrangements. Any changes need to be considered carefully, not least because of the resource implications for FPCs of storing records for longer periods.

  Community Care
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many severely mentally ill patients he expects to be discharged from hospital into the community between now and 1991; what is the current cost of maintaining them in hospital; and what is his estimate of the additional cost of looking after them in the community;

  (2) what is his estimate of the additional cost of caring for the severely mentally ill in the community over the cost of caring for them in hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  Forecasts of future discharges from hospital of people with a mental illness are not made or collected centrally. The average inpatient cost per day in England for hospitals categorised "mental illness" in 1986–87, the latest year for which information is available, was £44·05 cash, equivalent to £308·35 per week. No comparable information is available centrally about the costs of caring for such patients outside hospital.

  Elderly Patients (Collection of Information)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will own the information collected by general practitioners on the lifestyle and relationships of elderly patients, as will be required by paragraph 11 of appendix B of the new contract document; whether family practitioner committees or health authorities will be entitled to have access to this information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  General practitioners collect and maintain information for the purpose of the treatment and care of their patients. Ownership of such information lies with the relevant family practitioner committee. FPCs will be entitled to have access to this information but, in accordance with the Department's policy on confidentiality of medical records, only in exceptional cases. A health circular and guidance for FPCs on the subject of ownership and confidentiality of data will be issued shortly.

  Land Development
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extent in the proposed land transactions of health authorities with developers to upgrade, purchase and build community facilities for the mentally ill, capital receipts would be offset against regional health authority allocations to district health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The policy is that district health authorities should benefit from the proceeds of sale of surplus property but the "Handbook on Land Transactions" makes it clear that the closure of hospitals for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped must be preceded by the build-up of comprehensive alternative services covering the whole of the hospital's catchment area. In these cases regional health authorities are required
  913
  to use their discretion as to the districts which are to benefit from sale proceeds within the general requirement to ensure that the proceeds are specifically used for development of services for the client group concerned.

  Social Care
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the distinction between social care and health care as referred to in his statement of 12 July,Official Report, columns 975–79.

  Mr. Mellor
  In relation to community care, health care involves the investigation, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation undertaken by a doctor or by other professional staff to whom a doctor has referred the patient. In addition, it includes health promotion and the prevention of ill health.

  Social care consists of non-health care and support provided through the supply of goods and services to maintain or establish people in their own homes, or by residential or non-acute nursing home care, as appropriate to individuals' needs.

  Health and social care combined form the basis of community care.

  Mental Illness (Services)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies and individuals he intends to consult in constructing the substantive statement of good practice regarding the minimum acceptable professional standards for assessing patients prior to discharge, and for follow-up after discharge referred to in his answer of 13 July, to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad),Official Report, columns 620–25.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been invited to publish a document on good practice for discharge and after-care procedures, following a recommendation (17.24) by the Spokes report (committee of inquiry into the care and after-care of Miss Sharon Campbell), published in July 1988. The college is seeking the views of colleagues in other professions.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies and individuals he will be consulting concerning his consideration of the possibility of proposing new legislation for compulsory treatment in the community referred to in his answer of 13 July to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad),Official Report, columns 620–25.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are awaiting views of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on this issue. If, in the light of the college's views, we believe that it would be appropriate to consider new legislation, we will first consult representatives of health and social services authorities, and other relevant statutory services, appropriate professional associations and voluntary organisations.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider urgently the case for specific grant for training social workers and other local authority staffs in the care of people with schizophrenia, in the light of the Spokes report and his statement to the House on 12 July,Official Report, columns 975–79.
  914
  Mr. Mellor
  Special training arrangements already exist for approved social workers working with mentally ill people under the Mental Health Act 1983. We shall keep under review the need for any further training initiatives for social services staff in the light of the future development of community care services.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government accept Sir Roy Griffiths recommendation that residential homes with less than four residents should be subject to regulation and inspection.

  Mr. Mellor
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement in the House on 12 July, the Government have concluded that, for the present, existing statutory functions relating to registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes should remain unaltered.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what variations in the performance of health authorities the latest set of Health Service indicators shows.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the booklet "Comparing Health Authorities" published by my Department in April 1988, copies of which are in the Library, illustrated wide variations in a number of aspects of performance. I will be placing in the Library tomorrow a copy of some key indicators for 1987–88. These show that variations remain substantial. For example, within England in 1987–88 for general surgery-urology and for all medical specialties, as in earlier years, the average expenditure per cash and average length of stay varied by a factor of about three. The indicators show wide variations in waiting time. For general surgery in some districts no patients had been waiting for more than a year on 31 March 1988 but in others over one third were in this position. Another indicator showing wide variations is the proportion of cases treated as day cases rather than admitted to hospital which ranges from less than 10 per cent. to over 30 per cent. for general surgery-urology and from less than 5 per cent. to over 20 per cent. for general medicine.

  Where there is no apparent good clinical explanation for these variations, and in those places where a high cost per case prevails, local management will need to investigate, particularly where other indicators such as waiting times appear to be poor. This critical examination of performance, as a routine part of managing the service, will be particularly important for all those providing, and all authorities purchasing, services if the changes set out in the White Paper are to be fully effective.

  Food Imports
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to ensure the wholesomeness of imported food.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 18 July at columns 135–36.

  Food Businesses (Register)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he will consider the need for a register of food businesses.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 24 July 1989.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pricing policy he expects independent National Health Service hospitals to follow under his proposals in the case of operations for which there are long waiting lists everywhere; and how this will effect the budgets of family doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  We expect all hospitals, whether they are self-governing or directly managed by the district health authority, to follow pricing policies which enable them to compete with other hospitals while covering their costs. Length of waiting lists should not have any particular effect on prices, save that for elective treatments district health authorities and GPs with practice budgets will be able to choose from a far wider range of providers than in other cases. Far more significant will be the effect that waiting lists themselves will have on competition between hospitals, since district health authorities and GPs will be seeking to place contracts with those hospitals that offer the best service to patients.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different standard formats of computerised letters his Department has in response to those raising their concerns about Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future of the Health Service; and how many in total have been sent out to date.

  Mr. Mellor
  Many correspondents have raised similar concerns about the proposals and have received similar replies.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of those of the 8,000 representations on the White Paper, "Working for Patients" which do not come from individiuals.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: By far the majority of the responses are from individuals who have questions or concerns about the White Paper. Many of the major organisations responding to the White Paper or the working papers have already made their responses public. For some the responses form the basis of further discussion, which is still continuing. I see no use in combing through the many responses to see which could be usefully placed in the Library and which are already there.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the quality initiative proposed in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The chief executive wrote to all health authorities last month to establish a programme for quality improvements. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library. His letter asked
  916
  all authorities to establish a framework for broad, unit-based, quality assurance programmes, including provision this year to cover appointment systems, information to patients, and public areas and reception arrangements. £2 million has also been allocated largely for hospital-related medical audit projects, and we hope to announce a number of national quality demonstration projects soon.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the £129·5 million he made available in 1989–90 to the National Health Service for the prevention of HIV infection and the services related to HIV infection and AIDS has been made available to Waltham Forest district health authority; whether any of the money has gone to substantial upgrading of genito-urinary medicine services in Waltham Forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am advised that Waltham Forest district health authority received £238,000 from North East Thames regional health authority's allocation of £16,655,000 for the prevention of HIV infection and the services related to HIV infection and AIDS. The district is reviewing the provision of genito-urinary medical services for its resident population which are currently provided by Tower Hamlets and Newham health authorities.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has had from Waltham Forest district health authority to his February letter advising them to provide details of all completed and planned developments in genito-urinary medicine services; when they published the relevant report; if he will make a copy of it available to the hon. Member for Leyton; whether the response is in accord with his comments prioritising such services during the debate on AIDS on 13 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that Waltham Forest district health authority has sent the requested AIDS control report to North East Thames RHA, which is due to submit reports from all districts in the region to the Department at the end of July. A copy of the report can be obtained from the local health authority.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to him on the relative efficacy of medicines prescribed to people with AIDS or AIDS-related complex according to whether they are, or are not, able to afford the high protein and calorie diets recommended to them by their doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: We are not aware of any scientific information relating the efficacy of drug therapies for AIDS or AIDS-related complex to the consumption of high-protein and calorie diets.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to him on the survival rate of people with AIDS or AIDS-related complex, analysed by level of income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: We do not hold this information.
  917
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the average weekly cost of medicines prescribed to people with AIDS or AIDS-related complex.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: People with HIV disease may be treated for a number of different illnesses with a number of different drugs. We do not have information in the Department on all the drugs administered to all people with AIDS or AIDS-related complex and cannot therefore provide an estimate of the average weekly cost per patient.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) to what extent foreign AIDS and drug dependency patients are treated by the Parkside health authority.

  (2) why it took Parkside health authority over six weeks to reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Northampton, North, saying that no information was available.

  Mr. Mellor
  Parkside health authority regrets the delay in replying to my hon. Friend's letter of 25 May which was occasioned by the need to check a number of potential sources of information within the authority. Information of this kind on patients' nationalities is not held centrally and could be extracted clerically from individual records only at disproportionate expense.

  Intra-uterine Device
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the local research ethics committee, including its composition, which approved the trial of the copper intra-uterine contraceptive device on patients in the United Kingdom for experimental purposes; what consideration it gave to the fact that the device had not been approved by the relevant authorities in the United States at that time and to notifying the patients that they were being used for experimental test purposes; and what steps he has taken to avoid United Kingdom patients being unknowingly tested by foreign drug companies occurring again.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information about particular local research ethics committees is not held centrally.

  With regard to the testing of medical products and the conditions under which they are administered to patients, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) at column 542 on 29 June.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints of infertility in women who have used the Copper 7 intra-uterine contraceptive device have been reported to his Department; and when the device was approved by the Department for use.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 20 letters received by the Department, women have expressed the belief that they have been adversely affected by the device, known in this country as the Gravigard. However infertility is not specified either in these individual cases, or in reports received under the scheme whereby doctors are asked to notify suspected adverse reactions.

  The Gravigard's product licence was granted on 17 December 1973 and took effect retrospectively from 7 November 1973.

  Audiology Students
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake an urgent review of the grading of audiology students.

  Mr. Mellor
  I presume that the hon. Member refers to student physiological measurement technicians specialising in audiology. This is a matter for the professional and technical staffs B Whitley Council. Negotiations are taking place on proposals to introduce a new pay and grade structure for this and other groups of technical staff.

  Hearing Aids
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken, or proposes to take, in relation to the proposals on the provision of hearing aids advanced by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West on 23 March,Official Report, columns 1299–1303.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration he is giving to developing innovative pilot projects in community delivery of hearing aids;

  (2) what plans he has to reduce the time taken to obtain a National Health Service hearing aid;

  (3) what steps he is taking to improve the take-up and use of National Health Service hearing aids;

  (4) what steps he is taking to make hearing aid services more accessible, particularly to elderly people and to people living in residential homes;

  (5) when he intends to respond to the Royal National Institute for the Dears fair hearing campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department has issued on the direct referral of patients needing hearing aids to hearing aid centres; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has for the improvement of National Health Service hearing aid services; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what research his Department has conducted into the average waiting time for the testing and fitting of a hearing aid;

  (4) what response his Department has made to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf document, "Hearing Aids—the Case for Change";

  (5) whether he will take steps to increase the choice of hearing aids available on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am very grateful to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf for bringing public attention to the difficulties which some people face in obtaining a hearing aid. There is a broad measure of agreement for the idea of making hearing tests and the supply of hearing aids more accessible to people in the community and I am pleased to be able to announce a number of measures towards this end.

  First, Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of Mersey regional health authority, which acts as the centre of responsibility for the procurement and distribution of hearing aids in the National Health Service, is meeting representatives of hearing aid manufacturers today to discuss ways of increasing the number of commercial hearing aids and accessories which are supplied to patients by National Health Service audiology departments in addition to the

  919
  standard National Health Service range of hearing aids. We will also be considering in the Department ways of enabling patients requiring hearing aids to obtain them more easily. We expect to begin consultations in the autumn.

  Secondly, I have asked my officials with the help of appropriate outside expert advice to draw up and consult interested bodies on a programme of action commencing in the new financial year to expand the number of direct referral schemes and set up a mechanism to evaluate them to ensure that they are operating with appropriate safeguards and are effective in reducing waiting times. Direct referral schemes would entail National Health Service patients being referred by their GPs direct to the audiology service for a hearing test and dispensing of hearing aids rather than going via hospital-based consultants.

  Thirdly, my officials are currently involved in the development of a national vocational qualification in audiology. I have asked them to begin discussions in the autumn with professional bodies and other interested parties to examine the scope for a greater measure of integration between the service provided by National Health Service audiologists and that provided by private hearing aid dispensers.

  I expect that these measures, together with the impact of the new Hearing Aid Council Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this month, will result in a substantial measure of improvement in service and greater choice for people who have a hearing impairment.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the likely impact of the forthcoming demographic changes in demand for hearing aid services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Institute for Hearing Research has produced figures which suggest that the prevalence of hearing loss is greater in people aged 60 and over. However, not all of these people require hearing aids.

  King Edward VII Hospital, Windsor
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will ensure that the acute services available at King Edward VII hospital, Windsor, are not reduced to the extent that constituents will be deprived of any local hospital and compelled to rely on facilities for which adequate public transport is not available.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that East Berkshire health authority will soon be starting formal public consultation on its proposals to rationalise the provision of acute services within its district. The matter may in due course be referred to Ministers for a final decision and it is therefore inappropriate for me to make any comment at this stage.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions, including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many were affirmative; and if he will make a statement.
  920
  Mr. Freeman
  The information is in the table. For Sessions earlier than 1988–89 the figures are only those statuory instruments issued by the Department of Health and Social Security which relate to health matters.

  Session

  Affirmative instruments

  Negative instruments

  1984–85

  2

  32

  1985–86

  1

  47

  1986–87

  0

  25

  1987–88

  1

  42

  1988–89

  3

  48

  Rubella
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rubella-handicapped adults are estimated to live in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally. SENSE, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, estimates that in 1965, during the last major rubella epidemic and, before rubella vaccine was introduced, about 1,000 babies were born in the United Kingdom with congenital rubella syndrome. Since the introduction of vaccine, numbers of such births have fallen to approximately 20 per year.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase funding made available to the National Rubella Council to encourage its work in preventing children being born handicapped by congenital rubella syndrome.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials will be touch shortly with the council about its section 64 grant for 1989–90 and 1990–91. In addition, there will be further discussions with the council about support for the specific publicity proposals which it has put forward.

  Vaccine (Ethnic Minorities)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the uptake of the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine amongst ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Freeman
  Leaflets in several ethnic languages were produced jointly by the Health Education Authority (HEA) and the Department of Health as part of the programme to launch MMR immunisation last October, and discussions between the HEA and the Department on future activity will include the need for information aimed at ethnic minority groups.

  General Practitioners (Contract)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health w hen he next plans to meet the General Medical Services Committee to discuss changes to the new contract for general practitioners in the light of the completion of the general practitioners' referendum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  At their request I met the negotiators of the General Medical Services Committee on Monday 24 July. I made it clear that I would have preferred an agreed basis for the new contract and that I had all along made considerable efforts to achieve an
  921
  agreed solution. The discussions satisfied me that there was no sensible basis on which anyone could now reasonably expect to reopen the issues agreed with them on 4 May. I believe the contract agreed on 4 May to be in the best interests of all patients, as it will improve the standard of care they can expect to receive. I did agree, at the negotiators' request, to extend the deadline for the formal response to the draft regulations to 15 August. I have no present plans for another meeting.

  Blood Donations
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many donations of blood were(a) used in the National Health Service and (b) transferred to the private sector in each of the years 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall write to the hon. Member with such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the illnesses, deaths, cause, source, locations and time period of the recent outbreak of salmonella poisoning in north Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that during May of this year 61 cases of salmonella typhimurium were recorded in

  All admissions to mental illness hospitals and units with a diagnosis of presenile or senile dementia1, by Regional Health Authority of treatment. 1981–86

  Regional Health Authority

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  14,855

  15,908

  16,707

  19,183

  19,931

  19,727

  Northern

  1,163

  1,050

  1,215

  1,499

  1,496

  1,270

  Yorkshire

  1,086

  1,230

  1,557

  1,587

  1,732

  1,744

  Trent

  1,190

  1,225

  1,397

  1,721

  1,935

  2,045

  East Anglian

  834

  1,000

  1,100

  1,409

  1,299

  1,237

  North West Thames

  799

  773

  989

  1,001

  1,088

  1,118

  North East Thames

  1,039

  1,173

  1,205

  1,395

  1,279

  1,237

  South East Thames

  899

  1,172

  959

  920

  1,085

  917

  South West Thames

  1,084

  893

  979

  1,061

  1,124

  1,217

  Wessex

  1,580

  1,563

  1,638

  1,836

  1,646

  1,551

  Oxford

  1,022

  1,208

  982

  1,286

  1,640

  1,759

  South Western

  1,106

  1,477

  1,370

  1,382

  1,491

  1,342

  West Midlands

  1,011

  947

  1,052

  1,154

  1,317

  1,385

  Mersey

  935

  970

  889

  1,280

  1,352

  1,342

  North Western

  1,085

  1,214

  1,349

  1,628

  1,431

  1,542

  Special Health Authority

  22

  13

  26

  23

  18

  21

  1 ICD codes 290·, 290·1, 290·2, 290·3.

  Source: Mental Health Enquiry.

  Contraception (Children)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any information concerning the numbers of children aged under 16 years who were given contraceptive drugs and devices by family planning clinics and the Brook Advisory Service in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information relates to the number of clients seen rather than to the outcome of the consultation. In 1987–88 15,600 young people aged under 16 were seen at community and hospital family planning clinics in England. This figure includes those seen by Brook centres providing services on an agency basis for health authorities.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any information concerning the numbers 922
  north Derbyshire and neighbouring districts. Pork products were definitely implicated in at least 27 of the cases. The organism was identified in four people who died. Its contribution as a factor in their deaths forms part of the coroners' investigations, which are not yet complete. The outbreak has been fully investigated and appropriate action taken.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of cases of Alzheimer's disease in each health authority area in England in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows admissions to NHS mental illness hospitals and units in each regional health authority in England for the years 1981 to 1986 with a main diagnosis of presenile or senile dementia (ICD 290 0, 290.1, 290.2, 290.3). Alzheimer's disease is included under these diagnosis. The admission figures may be greater than the number of patients treated, as a patient can be discharged and readmitted more than once during the year. Not all cases of Alzheimer's disease will be admitted to hospital. Additional information is not available centrally or could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  of prescriptions for contraceptive drugs and devices which were issued to children aged under 16 years in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps he has taken to ensure that fits guidelines for National Health Service doctors on the issuing of contraceptives to children aged under 16 years without parental knowledge are also followed by the personnel of the Brook Advisory Service and the Family Planning Association.

  Mr. Freeman
  Voluntary organisations in the family planning field have copies of the guidance issued in March 1986 and I have no reason to believe that the guidance is not being followed.
  923
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has given any recent guidance to doctors about the action which they should take when approached by children under the age of 16 years who are the victims on incest and who are seeking contraceptives or abortions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No guidance on this specific point has been issued recently.

  Hospitals (Self-governing Status)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and status of the sponsors of each of the expressions of interest in self-governing status.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have now moved forward in examining, with the health authorities concerned, the expressions of interests originally submitted to the Department. We see no good purpose in publishing a list which can change from day to day.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the timetable for the preparation of prospectus documents and business plans for self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  We will be issuing guidance in due course.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with regard to allowing self-governing status to hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]:I refer my hon. Friend to my response today to my hon. Friend, the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot).

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will deposit in the Library a copy of each of the submissions expressing interest in hospital self-governing status.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: No. Expressions of interest are not formal applications. When applications are prepared RHAs will seek the views of those with an interest.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what intervals the public health laboratory service central laboratory at Colindale collates regular reports of food contamination from regional laboratories.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Reports of contaminated food of public health significance are sent to the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre (CDSC) on a weekly basis. In the event of an unusual occurrence, PH LS headquarters and CDSC are immediately informed so that appropriate investigations can be instituted and advice given.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of listeria contamination in imported pate have been confirmed by the public health laboratory centre in England and Wales; and if he will list the circumstances under which samples were taken and the outlets involved, by county.
  924
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The results of surveys of pate made by the PHLS, at present available, are that the PHLS Cardiff laboratory examined 73 samples of pate and 37 contained listeria. Of these, 59 samples were produced in Belgium and 32 were positive. In a continuing study in Cardiff further samples have been examined, and positive results obtained, from a variety of retail outlets. A larger national survey is currently in progress.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish details of codes of practice under which the public health laboratory service conducts routine tests on samples submitted to it for analysis as suspected cases of food poisoning.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Each PHLS laboratory has its own procedures, adapted to local circumstances, based on the standard textbooks. In addition, the PHLS has a set of "Guidelines for the Microbiological Assessment of Foods".

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department assesses to be a potentially inefective dose of listeria.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: In a report "Foodborne Listeriosis" published in 1988, the World Health Organisation concluded that virtually nothing is known about the infectious dose of Listeria monocytogenes in man, nor is there good quantitative information relating to the amount of contaminated foodstuff ingested with the risk of acquiring the disease. It is likely that the infectious dose may be related to host susceptibility hence the early warning to vulnerable groups we issued on 12 July. With present knowledge and experience it is difficult to issue specific guidance on what constitutes a potentially infective dose of listeria.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will instruct the public health laboratory service to conduct tests for listeria during routine examination conducted by them on samples of food submitted by the public health service.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The type of tests carried out by the PHLS on samples of food taken during routine examination depend upon the type of food and the processing that it has received. It would not be appropriate to examine for listeria in every case. It is a matter for environmental health departments and the PHLS to decide upon the appropriate tests to be conducted according to the circumstances.

  Psychiatric Hospitals (Catering Costs)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the approximate cost of the daily main meal for patients in psychiatric hospitals; and what is the weekly food budget per patient.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The cost of providing daily main meals to hospital patients is not available centrally. The average daily cost of catering for patients in psychiatric hospitals in 1986–87 (England) was £2·53, of which £1·35 related to the costs of provisions. However, this excludes the costs of energy and utilities and accommodation overheads.

  Figures for 1987–88 are not yet available.

  Source: Costing returns submitted to the Department by health authorities.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure he has for the total cost of drugs prescribed by general practitioners.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The total cost of the drugs, dressings and appliances dispensed to patients in England in 1988, including prescriptions personally administered to patients by their GP, was £2·219 million. This compares with £1,770 million in 1986.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of district health authorities; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: We do not have formal meetings with all 190 district chairmen at any one time. However we regularly meet chairmen on an individual and group basis to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Creches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to encourage health authorities to establish workplace creches and similar incentives further to encourage the return of mothers into the health and caring professions.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: Mothers returning to work have a major contribution to make to staffing the NHS and other caring professions over the next decade. We fully recognise the value of workplace nurseries in attracting and retaining their services. In March this year we introduced a new collaborative venture between the Health Service and the Midland bank to set up and share creche facilities for staff throughout the country. I understand that the scheme has been well received by health authorities and that a number are discussing specific plans with the bank. The national steering group on equal opportunities for women in the NHS has produced a report and a guidance manual which we commended to all health authorities in April. They give detailed guidance on the implementation of workbreak schemes, including child-minding facilities. In addition, the NHS training authority is developing a "return and retain" scheme for staff wishing to take career breaks.

  Decisions about the implementation of such schemes are for individual employing authorities. But we take every opportunity to emphasise that there must be improvements and greater flexibility in working practices and recruitment and retention policies to counteract the substantial drop in the number of young people coming on to the labour market in the 1990s, as well as to provide worthwhile job and career opportunities for returning mothers and, for those who are professionally qualified, to secure the best investment from their professional training.

  Hospital Physicists
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy fully to fund any pay settlement negotiated by the employers with hospital physicists during the current year.
  926
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: No. Health authorities are expected to meet all costs, including Whitley pay settlements, from their allocations.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if lie will set up a pay review board for hospital physicists.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 24 July at column 536.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the salary scales for each of the last five years for hospital physicists.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Hospital Physicists Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I has met the Hospital Physicists Association.

  Minor Operations
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of minor operations being carried out in general practitioners' surgeries within the areas of the five family practitioner committees in west Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: We do not hold this information.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is made available to those general practitioners who wish to carry out minor operations in their own surgeries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: It is the responsibility of the medical profession to provide such training as is necessary for the provision of general medical services. We are currently discussing the training implications of the GPs' new contract with interested educationists. No decisions have yet been made.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on proposals for implementation of the Griffiths report.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: As yet we have received only a few representations on our proposals, for community care set out in the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 12 July. These and other representations will be taken into account in our preparations for the White Paper.

  Fair Hearing Campaign
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to discuss the fair hearing campaign; if he has any plans to review the provision of National Health Service hearing aids; and if he will make a statement.
  927
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: We are currently considering our response to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf's Fair hearing campaign, and will make an announcement in due course.

  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district authority the percentage of women in the relevant age group who have so far responded to the national programme for screening for breast cancer.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: Statistics from the breast screening centres will not be available centrally until towards the end of 1990 following the receipt of Korner forms KC62 and KC63 ("Adult Screening Programme: Breast Cancer Screening") by the Department.

  Acceptance rates of over 70 per cent. of the women called for screening were, however, reported informally last year by over half the first screening centres.

  Nurses (Grading Appeals)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) how many nurses have been awarded a higher grade following an appeal to district or regional authorities; and what percentage this represents of all appeals heard to date;

  (2) if he will state his latest estimate of (a) the number of appeals by nurses against their new grade awaiting a hearing at regional level and (b) the number of such appeals so far to complete the appeals process at that level.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: We do not collect information centrally concerning the number of appeals to district health authorities. Approximately 2,600 requests for hearings at regional appeals committee level have been lodged to date, and none has yet reached the hearing stage.

  Water Supply, North Sheffield
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of unwholesome water supply in the north Sheffield area; if he will take steps to monitor the incidence of ill-health arising from the supply of the Yorkshire water authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that drinking water from the north Sheffield area is supplied from the Yorkshire grid, from the recently built Langsett treatment works and from the Pennine treatment works. Supplies from the Yorkshire grid and Langsett treatment works are normally of very good quality although there may be occasional breaches of the EC drinking water directive standard for iron. These supplies serve the majority of the people of north Sheffield.

  Supplies from the Pennine treatment works, notably Loxley and Ewden, regularly fail to comply with the EC directive standards for manganese and aluminium. These substances affect the appearance of drinking water and are not considered to be a risk to health. Remedial works for both treatment plants are included in the Yorkshire water authority's current capital programme.

  Monitoring is already being undertaken nationally by the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre.

ENVIRONMENT

  Chironomid Larvae
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the presence of chironomid larvae found recently in the water supply emanating from Hampton works; whether there are any dangers to health; whether any pathogenic organisms, including cryptosporidia and aeromonas, could have passed through the works; and what action the communicable disease surveillance centre has taken.

  Mr. Howard
  Thames Water has informed me that it is satisfied that the chironomid larvae problem is under control. Initially five filters were taken out of supply as a precaution. Three were found not to be the cause of the problem and were returned to service. One of the others was marginally affected. This was drained down, inspected and re-sanded and is shortly to go back into service. The other bed which was most affected is undergoing a thorough structural investigation and will be out of service for some time. The contact tank at the Hampton works was also taken out of use in two stages, was cleaned and is now fully operational.

  Thames Water has been monitoring intensively the Hampton works and associated distribution system for pathogenic organisms including cryptosporidium. It did not detect salmonellae, entero-viruses or giardia in any of the samples. Aeromonas, an organism which can colonise slow sand filters, was detected in samples of water leaving the works and in the distribution system. It is commonly found in distribution systems and there is no evidence that when present in water supplies it is detrimental to public health.

  Thames Water found that many of the samples of water from the works and the distribution system contained low levels of cryptosporidia. As a precaution the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre is monitoring the occurrence of human cases of cryptosporidiosis and giardiasis in the parts of London supplied by the Hampton works in order to detect any significant increase in the number of cases, should this occur. So far no such increase has been detected. Thames Water is continuing to monitor samples of the works inlet and outlet for cryptosporidia.

  ERDF Funding (Merseyside)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about ERDF funding for the Merseyside integrated development operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received letters from a number of hon. Members representing Merseyside constituencies about the level of ERDF funding which may be allocated to the Merseyside integrated development operation. Firm decisions on the allocation of resources have not yet been made by the European Commission, and the Government will be pressing for the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom as a whole and for Merseyside.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.
  929
  Mr. Patten
  The number of letters received from right hon. and hon. Members in January was 2,211 and for the whole of this Session up to 1 July the total was 17,991. The number of letters sent to right hon. and hon. Members was 1,802 in January and 15,968 for the whole of this Session up to 1 July.

  Housing Act 1988 (Grants)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 26 May,Official Report, column 792, on the subject of grants under section 29 of the Housing Act 1988, what progress has been made and what discussion he has had with (a) the Lichfield district council. (b) the Stafford borough council and (c) the Cannock Chase district council.

  Mr. Howard
  Twenty-nine local authority cash incentive schemes have now been approved, and others are under consideration. The Department has written to the councils mentioned but none has submitted a scheme for approval.

  House Purchase and Sales
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' working party on ways to simplify the process of buying and selling houses; and whether he will introduce legislation based on the working party's recommendations.

  Mr. Chope
  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors sent copies of the working party's report to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Consumer Affairs.

  The Government wish the process of house buying and selling to be as simple and fair as possible and are therefore considering the report's recommendations together with other representations on the subject.

  Special Waste (Dumping)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many enforcement officers are employed in Surrey to monitor the illegal dumping of special waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Surrey county council employs seven full-time inspectors and two part-time prosecuting officers to carry out enforcement responsibilities regarding waste management in its area.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total sum which will be raised by the community charge in England and Wales in the first year of collection.

  Mr. David Hunt
  If English local authorities spend in line with the level of total standard spending proposed by my right hon. Friend on 19 July, and given the level of aggregate external finance he proposed, they would need to raise about £9·7 billion from community charges in 1990–91. The equivalent figure for Wales, announced by my right hon. Friend on 20 July, is £376 million. Not all of these sums would come from chargepayers, because of community charge benefit.
  930
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will prepare a leaflet explaining the effect of the community charge upon private tenants and their landlords.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department is preparing such a leaflet, which will cover landlords and tenants in the private, public and housing association sectors. It will be available free of charge later this year.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the maximum percentage reduction in rates from which business will benefit in 1990–91, following the introduction of the uniform business rate; and whether he will make it his policy that any increase in this percentage figure during the transitional period should not be brought about by penalising those businesses liable to higher rate bills.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he plans to issue any guidelines to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of poll tax payments for(a) Royal Navy personnel and (b) merchant seamen;

  (2) what guidelines have been issued to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of poll tax payments for Royal Navy personnel and merchant seamen away from home for a period of more than six months, for both householders and non-householders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Guidance on United Kingdom service personnel was included in community charge practice note No. 17 published in April this year. Guidance on questions of sole or main residence was contained in community charge practice No. 9 published last November. Copies of all practice notes are in the Library of the House. It is for community charge registration officers to decide where an individual is solely or mainly resident on the facts of each individual case.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated yield in the current financial year of a business rate for (a) offices, (b) shops, cafes and restaurants, (c) hotels and boarding houses based on the capital value and (d) other business premises equal to, respectively (i) five per cent. in the City of London, (ii) four per cent. in the rest of London, (iii) three per cent. in the metropolitan districts and (iv) two per cent. elsewhere in the United Kingdom, together with his estimate of the yield in 1988–89 under the present arrangement and under the new arrangements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The estimated yield in the United Kingdom for 1988–89 from business rates under the present arrangements is as follows:

  £ million

  Offices

  1,900

  Shops and restaurants

  1,800

  Hotels and boarding houses

  150

  Other businesses

  4,600

  The other information requested is not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the community charge
  931
  liability of a carer who resides part-time in his other home and the remainder of the time in the home of the persons being cared for when the homes are in different boroughs; whether he will make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the carer pays only the equivalent of one poll tax however that is distributed between the two boroughs concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend intends to bring forward regulations providing for a separate class of standard charge property. The new class will include property which is unoccupied as a result of a person receiving care because of illness or infirmity, and will enable relief from the standard charge to be given in respect of such property. The precise details of the relief will be the subject of consultation in due course.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether an individual (i) receiving and (ii) applying for severe disablement allowance will be exempt from the poll tax; whether any doctor can declare a person eligible as required for severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Individuals in receipt of severe disablement allowance will be exempt from the personal community charge if they satisfy the definition of severely mentally impaired persons set out in schedule 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Details of the procedure to be followed to qualify for the exemption are set out in practice note 19, copies of which have been available from the Library of the House since 10 May.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each charging authority area, attributing grant income received by precepting authorities under the current grant system to each area in proportion to the aggregate of rateable values in that area(a) the estimated rate support grant for 1989–90, (b) the estimated amount of revenue support grant which would have been payable in 1989–90 under the proposed new grant system, had the system been in its first year of operation in 1989–90 within full safety nets and assuming needs assessment at 1989–90 grant-related expenditure levels, (c) the estimated amount of revenue grant payable in 1989–90 under the proposed new grant system after the end of safety nets and assuming needs assessment at 1989–90 grant-related expenditure levels, (d) the difference between (a) and (b), (e) the difference between (a) and (c), and (f) the difference between (b) and (c), showing aggregates for each figure for each class of charging authority and for each region, showing inner London, outer London and the rest of the south east separately.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: A table giving the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each charging authority area, attributing business rate income received by precepting authorities under the current system to each area in proportion to the aggregate of rateable values in that area(a) the estimated revenue from the non-domestic rate in 1989–90, (b) the estimated amount which would have been raised in revenue by the national non-domestic rate in 1989–90 after the end of transitional arrangements and assuming rateable values at current levels, (c) the
  932
  amount which would have been paid from the national non-domestic rating pool to each area in 1989–90, (d) the difference between (a) and (b), (e) the difference between (b) and (c) and (f) the difference between (a) and (c) showing aggregates for each figure for each class of charging authority and for each region, showing inner London, outer London and the rest of the south-east separately.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: A table giving the information requested has been placed in the Library. For the purpose of illustration, it is assumed that the national non-domestic rate multiplier is set to raise the same level of income as under the present system.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to community charge registration officers on possible penalties and actions against individuals for non-payment of the poll tax in England and Wales; and if he will list these.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Guidance on recovery and enforcement of the community charge has been prepared jointly by the Government and the local authority associations in practice note No. 15 which we intend to distribute to local authorities next week. Copies of the document are available in the Library of the House.

  The practice note lists the measures currently available for the enforcement of domestic rates, explains how these are to be applied to community charges, and gives details of additional remedies available to charging authorities through magistrates' courts.

  Yorkshire and Humberside (Heritage and Culture)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for further promoting Yorkshire and Humberside heritage and culture.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We shall continue to promote the conservation, preservation and presentation of the heritage in all regions through funding and support to English Heritage, the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and a wide range of national and regional voluntary heritage organisations.

  Hertfordshire Groundwork Trust
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant was paid by the Countryside Commission to the Hertfordshire Groundwork Trust; whether the grant required his approval; and what monitoring of the use made of the grant is undertaken by(a) his Department or (b) the Countryside Commission.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988–89 the Countryside Commission paid £7,728 to the Hertfordshire Groundwork Trust by way of grants under the provisions of section 9 of the Local Government Act 1974. The grants did not require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Applications for grant in the current financial year are still under consideration.

  Letting Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of dwellings available for letting in each year since 1970 in the
  933
  private and public sectors, respectively, in total and as a proportion of the housing stock: if he will give a regional breakdown; and what is his estimate of the proportion in France. Germany and Italy.

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

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) houses and (b) flats were built by housing associations in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  It is estimated that in 1988 housing associations completed 1,900 new houses and 7,200 new flats.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sheltered and very sheltered housing units were started and completed in the last financial year by(a) the public sector, (b) housing associations and (c) the private sector other than housing associations.

  Mr. Chope
  Numbers of new sheltered dwellings started and completed by sector appear in table 1.5 of "Housing and Construction Statistics part 1, No. 37", a copy of which is in the Library. Information about very sheltered housing is not available.

  Housing (Young People)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many single person flats suitable for young adults were built in the last financial year in(a) the public, (b) the private and (c) housing association sectors; and what information he has on the availability of such accommodation nationally and regionally.

  Mr. Chope
  Housebuilding statistics are not classified in this way. However, regional and national estimates of completions of new one-bedroom flats appear in table 6.8(a) of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1977–1987". For recent quarters, the percentages of new flats with one bedroom (excluding housing association completions) appear in table 1.6 of the quarterly publication "Housing and Construction Statistics. Part 1, No. 37". Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering legislation to place a responsibility on local authorities to house single young persons, and to make adequate resources available to local authorities for the new build required.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is reviewing the homelessness legislation and hopes to announce conclusions soon.

  Housing (Capital Resources)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give an account of capital resources available to the Yorkshire and Humberside region from the Government for housing purposes for each year from 1979 to 1989;
  934
  (2) if he will give an account of capital resources available to Wakefield metropolitan district council, from the Government for housing purposes for each year from 1979 to 1989.

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

  Total housing investment programme allocations

  £ thousands

  Wakefield

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  1979–80

  16,577

  216,000

  1980–81

  13,459

  190,027

  1981–82

  10,177

  168,366

  1982–83

  15,367

  214,813

  1983–84

  11,267

  210,798

  1984–85

  10,026

  166,769

  1985–86

  8,474

  140,326

  1986–87

  7,136

  125,312

  1987–88

  7,897

  125,103

  1988–89

  7,654

  123,706

  1989–901

  4,683

  91,372

  1 Allocations issued to date.

  Winget Howes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in establishing an agreed method of repair for Winget-type houses.

  Mr. Chope
  None. Under the housing defects legislation, if reinstatement is not likely to be economic or feasible, assistance will be by repurchase.

  Housing Improvement Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has carried out on the cost-effectiveness of(a) means-testing of individual applicants for housing improvement grants and (b) the present system of block grants.

  Mr. Chope
  Provision has been made in the Department's research programme to monitor the effectiveness of both means-tested renovation grants and block repair schemes.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of disconnections for non-payment in the year to April 1989 for each of the water authorities and statutory water companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested by my hon. Friend regarding the English water authorities and statutory water companies is contained in the following table. Any request for information on the Welsh water authority, the Chester waterworks company and the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  935

  Disconnections in 1988–89(Domestic and non-domestic)

  1988–89

  Authorities

  Anglian

  1,880

  Northumbrian

  870

  North West

  779

  Severn Trent

  1,101

  Southern

  1,354

  South West

  100

  Thames

  935

  Wessex

  73

  Yorkshire

  999

  Water companies

  Bournemouth

  13

  Bristol

  108

  Cambridge

  177

  Cholderton

  n/a

  Colne Valley

  141

  East Anglia

  16

  Eastbourne

  10

  East Surrey

  120

  East Worcestershire

  15

  Essex

  1,109

  Folkestone

  120

  Hartlepool

  120

  Lee Valley

  420

  Mid Kent

  20

  Mid Sussex

  20

  Mid Southern

  573

  Newcastle

  558

  North Surrey

  110

  Portsmouth

  n/a

  Rickmansworth

  126

  South Staffordshire

  1,790

  Sunderland

  70

  Sutton District

  11

  Tendering Hundred

  30

  West Hampshire

  110

  West Kent

  0

  York

  79

  n/a—Not available.

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information, including baseline data, other than that submitted by the developer he has when determining whether environmental assessment is required; and if he will make public all the information used in determining whether or not environmental assessment is required for schedule 2 projects;

  (2) what matters other than those referred to in general terms in paragraphs 18–29 and appendix A of circular 15/88 have been taken into account when determining whether environmental assessment is required for schedule 2 projects; and if he will give details of variations and the reasons therefore;

  (3) what variations there have been, and on what basis, in adherence to the numerical criteria and thresholds in appendix A of circular 15/88 when directing whether environmental assessment is required.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Environmental assessment is required for any projects of the types listed in schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 which are likely to have significant environmental effects. Whether or not any particular project is likely to have significant effects so that environmental assessment is required is a matter of judgment from case to case. In exercising that judgment for the purpose of directing whether or not environmental 936
  assessment is required for any particular case the Secretary of State takes account of relevant information in his possession about the nature, size and location of the project and will if appropriate seek further information from the developer, the local planning authority or others with information in their possession. The Secretary of State has regard to the general guidance in DoE circular 15/88. That guidance, however, is indicative in nature and does not obviate the need for a judgment to be made in each case. The guidance in circular 15/88 will be amended or augmented from time to time in the light of the decisions which have been made. However, such amendment has not been necessary so far.

  Compulsory Purchase Payments
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will extend entitlement to farm loss payments to those displaced from only part of a holding; and whether he proposes to give effect to the proposals relating to farm loss payments in the Green Paper, "Land Compensation and Compulsory Purchase Legislation", dated March 1989;

  (2) whether he will introduce an additional allowance payable when land is compulsorily purchased to compensate for the factor of compulsion, as proposed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;

  (3) whether he will introduce legislation in the next parliamentary Session to simplify and strengthen the compensation code for compulsory acquisition.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We are at present considering the responses to the consultation paper on land compensation and compulsory purchase legislation dated 7 March 1987 with a view to introducing legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits. In this context we are also considering the recommendations in the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' memorandum on compensation for compulsory acquisition, including its proposal for an additional allowance to compensate for the factor of compulsion.

  Clearance (Market Value)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give effect to the proposal in the Green Paper, "Home Improvement—A New Approach", dated May 1985, that the arrangements for compensating those affected by clearance should be simplified and in future that all owners will be entitled to market value as of right.

  Mr. Chope
  Part IV of schedule 8 to the Local Government and Housing Bill contains provisions repealing the existing measures relating to compensation for unfit housing which is compulsorily acquired. The effect of this is that compensation for housing in clearance areas will be assessed in the same way as for any other compulsory acquistion, and owners will qualify for market value compensation.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for each of the last five parliamentary Sessions including the 1988–89 Session, if he will list the number of Statutory Instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.
  937
  Mr. Patten
  The following is the information requested by the hon. Member as to the number of statutory instruments issued by my Department:

  Parliamentary session

  Number issued

  Negative

  Affirmative

  1984–85 (6 November 1984 to 30 October 1985)

  186

  85

  5

  1985–86 6 November 1985 to 7 November 1986)

  159

  94

  8

  1986–87 (12 November 1986 to 15 May 1987)

  82

  46

  4

  1987–88 (25 June 1987 to 15 November 1988)

  131

  90

  10

  1988–89 (22 November 1988 to date)

  130

  87

  6

  Note:

  In each case the balance represents those instruments, chiefly orders changing parish boundaries, which are subject neither to the affirmative nor to the negative procedure.

  Pollution
  Mr. Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 currently under consideration by his Department; and if he will indicate the dates such appeals were first lodged and indicate when decisions will be reached.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  Following is the list of appeals currently under consideration showing the dates they were first lodged. Decisions are issued as quickly as possible bearing in mind the detailed technical nature of the issues involved, the need for full information and to provide for exchange of representations between the parties.

  Date

  Empire Brickworks

  10 June 1982

  Seal Sands

  26 June 1984

  Soothill Brickworks

  11 January 1985

  Empire Brickworks (4)

  8 September 1986

  East Tilbury Marshes

  26 March 1987

  Bradleys Sand Pit

  28 May 1987

  Aveley Clay Pit

  10 July 1987

  Auckland Road

  21 July 1987

  Charleston Road

  10 August 1987

  Gilbey Road

  7 September 1987

  Cabbage Hill

  12 November 1987

  Warren Vale

  24 November 1987

  Old Railway Cutting

  7 December 1987

  Unit 3, Hartlepool

  7 December 1987

  Springwell Hill

  9 December 1987

  Norwood Industrial Estate

  3 February 1988

  Florence Not Mine

  2 June 1988

  Whinfield Farm

  23 June 1988

  Mummery's Copse

  27 June 1988

  Springwell Hill

  1 August 1988

  Disused Railway Cutting

  4 August 1988

  Calf Fallow Farm

  11 August 1988

  Unit 10, Edderbridge

  19 August 1988

  Redbournbury Plant

  24 November 1988

  Grazebrook Industrial Estate

  6 January 1989

  Leabrook Road

  10 January 1989

  Butterley Hole

  6 February 1989

  Bakers Hole

  8 March 1989

  Martin Earles Pit (2)

  8 March 1989

  140 Moss Lane

  13 March 1989

  Grazebrook Industrial Estate

  4 May 1989

  Ministerial Cars (Washing)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent instructions have been given about the washing of ministerial cars; how many and which have been washed since his appeal to car owners to desist from washing their cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Washing of Ministers' cars ceased from midday on 24 July.

  The ban will stay in force until the London water shortage eases, except in circumstances where the safety of the vehicle would be adversely affeced.

  Shooting Rights
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has forbidden the Nature Conservancy Council from(a) acquiring shooting rights in the process of setting up nature reserves, and (b) giving grants to other bodies for purchasing lands which carry the shooting rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In considering land purchase proposals whether from themselves or by grant aid to NGOs, the NCC and the Government are agreed that traditional rights over uses of the land should be interfered with only when that use is incompatible with the interests of conservation.

  African Elephants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to offer compensation and assistance to those east African countries which approve the transfer of African elephants to appendix I of CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not propose to consider offering compensation to East African countries which support the transfer of the African elephant to appendix I of CITES. Elephants can be of greater financial value to these countries as living tourist attractions than when killed for their ivory. We remain ready to discuss with African Governments further ways of helping them to conserve their wildlife resources, including elephants.
  939
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been received from ivory dealers in Hong Kong relating to the timetable for transfer of African elephants to appendix 1 of CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have received several letters from representatives of the Hong Kong ivory trade about the implications of the proposal to transfer the African elephant to Appendix 1 of CITES. These issues will be considered by the forthcoming conference of the parties to CITES.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the outcome of his consultations on his proposal to establish a London pensions fund.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend has now considered all the representations made on his proposal to transfer the superannuation fund and associated functions, rights and liabilities which the London residuary body (LRB) inherited on the abolition of the former Greater London council to a new corporate body, the London pensions fund, on 1 April 1990.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided, in the light of these consultations, to lay before Paliament an order providing for the establishment of the new London pensions fund, a corporate body with a membership of between seven and 11 members appointed by him. As previously proposed it would have an independent chairman with the remaining board members being drawn equally from London local government and independent sources. The London local authorities via their associations are being invited to put forward recommendations for the initial board appointments from London local government and to establish a voluntary consultative committee which my right hon. Friend might consult over future appointments to the board. The proposal to retain existing ILEA contributors in the fund has also been preserved.

  It is intended that the LPF should come into corporate existence on 31 October 1989, to allow time for it to prepare for its new responsibilities, and my right hon. Friend will shortly be consulting the London boroughs, including the City, and other interested parties on the text of the draft order.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes are proposed to the structure of the Audit Commission and the procedures for appointing commissioners when the remit of the Commission is extended to the Health Service.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government propose to increase the size of the Commission from 13 to 17 members to 15 to 20 members when its remit is extended to the Health Service. All members, including the chairman and deputy chairman, would be appointed jointly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and me. It is also intended to amend the existing statutory requirement to provide that in future we should be required before making an appointment to consult such persons and bodies as we think fit. We would of course, continue to consult the local authority associations, the 940
  accountancy bodies, the CBI and the TUC, as now. The Government intend to seek the necessary statutory provision for these changes in the proposed legislation on the reform of the Health Service.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his consideration of the representations received in response to the consultation paper issued on 15 February on the Government's proposed transitional arrangements for the new uniform business rate; whether he has any further information about the likely effects of the 1990 revaluation of business properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I received some 150 initial responses to the consultation paper and further representations from all the major business organisations. We have considered them carefully, and have decided to make a number of modifications to the proposed transitional arrangements.

  We believe that our proposals achieve a satisfactory balance in the transitional period, with long overdue reductions in rates being realised as quickly as is consistent with the need to provide adequate protection for businesses which must bear increases. We intend therefore to proceed with our proposals to limit the year-on-year changes resulting from the introduction of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation. For businesses which in 1990–91 will have larger bills in real terms than in 1989–90, the ceiling will be 20 per cent. in real terms for larger businesses and 15 per cent. for smaller ones as we proposed. But, in the light of representations received, we have concluded that the threshold of rateable value below which this lower ceiling will apply should be doubled to £15,000 in London and £10,000 elsewhere. For businesses which in 1990–91 will have smaller bills in real terms than in 1989–90, we estimate that the annual limits on reductions will be about 15 per cent. for businesses with rateable values below the revised threshold and about 10 per cent. for those with rateable values above the revised threshold. The precise figures for reductions will be calculated, once we have fuller information about the revaluation being undertaken by the Inland Revenue valuation office, so as to allow the limits to be set as high as possible consistent with the requirement that reductions must balance the cost of protection for those facing increases, so that the total yield of rates from the private sector and the nationalised industries remains broadly the same in real terms. Over 75 per cent. of all businesses will benefit from the more generous rateable value threshold. At the same time, we propose to raise the de minimis threshold, below which transitional arrangements will not apply, from a new rateable value of £200 to £500 for all properties, except for advertising hereditaments which will not be subject to any limit.

  As proposed, properties first occupied after 1 April 1990 will not benefit from the transitional arrangements. Furthermore, for consistency with these proposals generally, we have decided that transitional protection for those facing increases should apply only to those who occupy property as at 31 March 1990 and continue to do so after that date. If a property changes hands on or after 1 April 1990, the new occupier will pay any increase due in full.
  941
  Reduction in rate bills will continue to be subject to annual limits, however, whether or not there is a change of occupier.

  We propose to give effect to the transitional arrangements by way of legislative amendments which will be introduced into the Local Government and Housing Bill after the recess.

  I am also placing in the Library today a copy of the latest sample survey by the Inland Revenue of the combined effects of the 1990 revaluation and the introduction of a uniform business rate. This incorporates the results of a large number of actual revaluations. In general the survey confirms the results published with the consultation paper on 15 February. The new sample suggests that on average values after revaluation will be 7·7 times the current average rateable value for non-domestic properties in England, and 7·8 times in Wales; that the poundage, in 1989–90 prices, is expected to be in the range of 32 to 36p in England, compared with a locally set average poundage of some 258p in 1989–90, and in the range 34 to 38p in Wales compared with an average 1989–90 poundage of around 283p; and that the new arrangements, once the transition is complete, will reduce the rate burden or businesses in the north and midlands by about £1 billion.

  Limestone Mines
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the second report of the black country limestone advisory panel on "A Strategy for Limestone Mines"; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have considered the second report of the black country limestone advisory panel and have taken into account the views expressed by the local authorities in the black country and Shropshire and by private sector financial institutions. Earlier this year my hon. Friend the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), met the chairman and members of the panel to discuss the issues raised by this report.

  The Government welcome and endorse the strategy as proposed by the panel. They agree that overall priority should be given to action to protect public safety and that the protection of existing property and the potential for new development or re-development are important considerations. To that end, they will continue to give high priority to funding investigations of the limestone mines and to remedial action where it is appropriate and represents value for money. Over £20 million has already been spent under the derelict land grant provisions and a further £6 million will be spent in 1989–90.

  I understand that the first two targets established by the panel, for completion of initial desk appraisals and of investigations to establish the physical condition of a mine, are well on the way to being met. Only at the completion of these stages can the implications of the limestone problems be understood in their entirety and only then can a definitive programme of action to resolve the problems be established. I am, therefore, asking the panel to keep me informed on a regular basis on progress with investigations and proposals for remedial action so that the programme can be kept under review.

  It is important to recognise, however, that the amounts of money involved, while they cannot as yet be precisely
  942
  defined, are substantial. The timetable proposed by the panel may therefore need to be extended in view of the many competing demands for the limited resources which are available. It must also be recognised that it will not be possible to treat every individual mine immediately the need for treatment is identified. Following the panel's strategy, however, would enable all concerned to know what action would be taken, how priorities would be assessed and when they could expect the problems to be resolved. This should assist in removing a great deal of the uncertainty which has existed to date.

  Given these constraints, it would seem reasonable to suggest that it should be possible to resolve the bulk of the limestone problems in the west midlands by the middle to late 1990s.

  However, resolution of the problems does not necessarily mean complete in-filling of every mine. as has been recognised by the panel in its report. There may well be cases where the most cost-effective solution will be to repair any damage caused by subsidence as and when it occurs. In such cases, the Government would look to both local authorities and the private sector to work together with central Government as outlined in the Secretary of State's response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) of 6 April 1987. I believe that such a co-operative response, taken with the Government's endorsement of the panel's strategy, should go a long way in restoring confidence in the area and relieving the understandable concern that has arisen due to the presence of old limestone mine workings and the threat of subsidence that they pose.

  Maidenhead Sewage Plant (Discharges)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that the relaxation of standards for discharged effluent, proposed by Thames water authority, for the Maidenhead sewage plant, is adequate in terms of public health standards; and how long he anticipates this temporary relaxation will continue before being replaced by permanent measures.

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

  Mr. J. A. Reeves
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that an urgent reply is given to the letter of 24 July from the hon. Member for Broxbourne concerning the future pension of Mr. J. A. Reeves, an employee of Thames water authority.

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

  London Residuary Body (Properties)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the 65 applications by the London residuary body to his Department for consent to dispose of properties by means of voluntary sales to licensee occupiers at discounted prices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nature Reserve (Sheffield)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the proposals by the Yorkshire water authority(a) to create

  943
  a nature reserve at Blackburn meadows in Sheffield and (b) to do this through specified leasing arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist for the public to inspect details of asset sales by the residuary bodies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Section 79 of the Local Government Act 1985 provides for local electors to inspect residuary bodies' accounts and documents relating to them. Details of individual sale transactions are, however, matters for the vendor and purchaser and therefore commercially confidential.

  Broadwater Lake, Harefield
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has concerning any undertakings given by those concerned when gravel was extracted from what is now known as Broadwater lake, Harefield, in the London borough of Hillingdon, concerning its refilling and re-instatement as agricultural land; what representations he has received to the effect that the lake should not now be refilled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: A condition attached to the planning permission requires the site to be refilled. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about a change in the restoration proposals for the site. The enforcement or modification of conditions attached to a planning permission is, in the first instance, a matter for the local planning authority's consideration.

  Sports and Leisure Facilities
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in the Official Report the individuals and organisations who have responded to the draft order on the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities); and if he will place copies of responses in the Library;

  (2) when he will lay before Parliament the Local Government Act i988 (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The Local Government (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order will be laid later this year. The individuals and organisations which have responded to my Department on the draft order are listed as follows. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of their responses. Further copies are available from my Department's library.

  Local authority organisations

  Association of District Councils

  London Boroughs Association

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Local Authorities

  Leicester City Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Rochdale Metroliolitan Borough Council

  944

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Barnet

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Purbeck District Councl

  City of Chester

  Cambridge City Council

  City of York

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Tynedale District Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  London Borough of Croydon

  Reading Borough Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Lambeth

  London Borough of Hackney

  Burnley Borough Council

  City of Sheffield

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  City of Carlisle

  New Forest District Council

  South Somerset District Council

  Castle Morpeth Borough Council

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Borough of Havant

  Sports national bodies

  The Sports Council

  The Central Council of Physical Recreation

  Governing bodies of Sport

  Squash Rackets Association

  Amateur Athletics Association

  Amateur Swimming Association National

  Small Bore Rifle Association

  Other sports organisations

  South East Council for Sport and Recreation

  London Council for Sport and Recreation

  Yorkshire and Humberside Council for Sport and Recreation

  Northern Council for Sport and Recreation

  Leeds City Sports Association

  Bromley Sports Council

  Cleethorpes and District Athletics Club

  Cumbria County Hockey Association

  Yorkshire Cricket Association

  Lewisham Sports Council

  Greenwich Sports Council

  Sports Hall Athletic Association

  Professional bodies and Trade Unions

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Chief Leisure Officers Association

  The Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers

  Trade Union Congress

  National Union of Public Employees

  Society of County Secretaries

  British Resorts Association

  Institute of Baths and Recreation Management

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

  Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management

  Price Waterhouse

  Other organisations and individuals

  Fosse Day Centre

  National Federation of Gateway Clubs

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Association of Direct Labour Organisations

  Commission for the New Towns

  945

  Public Sector Management

  Business in Sport

  Elgivia Management

  Tenants' Choice
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) private landlords, (b) housing associations and (c) tenants' organisations have applied for registration under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988 in the Greater London area; and how many in each category have been approved.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The Housing Corporation has the responsibility to consider applications for tenants' choice landlord approval. I have asked the corporation to reply to the hon. Member.

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will change the title of the Manchester North and Manchester South valuation and community charge tribunals as suggested in resolutions from the inaugural meetings of those bodies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: No.

  City Grants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the value of city grants made to authorities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and outline their applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: Eight city grants totalling just over £2 million have been approved for developers undertaking projects within the Yorkshire and Humberside region. The projects will make an important contribution to the economies of the local authorities in which they are located by providing jobs, houses, offices and retail and industrial units.

  Bitumen Emulsifiers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of hydrocarbons that evaporate from bitumen emulsifiers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question yesterday.

  Building Contracts
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has been consulted over the development of model fair deal contracts between customers and contractors for building work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading; I shall ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

  High Folds, Leigh (Land Reclamation)
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total contribution from European Economic Community sources to the High Folds, Leigh land reclamation scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is not aware of any contributions having been made from the European regional development fund for the High Folds land reclamation scheme at Leigh.

  Cash Incentive Schemes
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to answer the letter from the London borough of Croydon dated 23 May on the subject of cash incentive schemes under the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any plans to introduce legislation to reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the then Minister for Roads and Traffic in reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mrs. Ruddock) on 29 June 1989 at col. 132.

  Housing Action Trust, Southwark
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be entitled to vote in any ballot on the creation of a housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 July 1989, e. 338]: The Housing Act 1988 makes each secure tenant, including each joint tenant, eligible for a vote in a ballot or poll on a proposal to designate an area as a HAT area. Regulations have today been laid before Parliament prescribing certain additional categories of local authority tenants of houses or flats who would be entitled to vote. These additional categories are long leaseholders, business tenants, tenants of licensed premises and tenants in tied accommodation. Joint tenants would each be entitled to their own vote.

  Rate Support (Warwickshire)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of rate support paid by Warwickshire to assist other areas in each year since 1979; and if he will express this in a constituency form.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The table gives estimates of the amount by which grant for authorities in Warwickshire was affected by resource equalisation in each year from 1981–82 to 1989–90. The introduction of the community charge will end these grant transfers.
  947

  Effect on block grant of equalisation for differences in resources measured by gross rateable values rather than population: 1981–82 to 1989–90

  (£ million)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Warwickshire County Council

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  -4

  -6

  -6

  -8

  North Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rugby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stratford on Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwick

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -1

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board to discuss the future of the board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the reform of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Gummer
  As my right hon. Friend announced on 20 July, the Government have decided to retain the basic elements of the existing potato marketing scheme in view of the need to maintain stability. However consumers and other non-producer interests should be given greater influence in the Potato Marketing Board's market management decisions.

  Irradiation of Food
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the forthcoming Food Bill will include new powers to regulate the use of food irradiation.

  Mr. Gummer
  New food legislation to be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits will include powers to introduce a full licensing system, under central Government control, for the irradiation of foodstuffs.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from interested parties with regard to food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has received representations from interested trade and consumer organisations on several aspects of food irradiation. A major concern is that consumers should be in a position to make an informed choice, and we intend to ensure this by instituting an effective system of controls which includes full and clear labelling.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received from producers or consumers of food in favour of food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Support has been publicly expressed by the Food and Drink Federation, the Spice Trade Association and the Institute of Cereals Manufacturers. In addition, a number of consumer groups have recognised that, with proper controls, this technology has potential benefits for consumers.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether other European Community countries are introducing environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Other EC countries are following the United Kingdom's lead in introducing ESA schemes. Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark now have approved areas.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to increase the number of environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Having designated 19 ESAs in the United Kingdom there is now a need to examine their impact and value for money. The scheme is to be reviewed in 1991 and future policy will depend on the outcome of this review.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what recent representations he has received regarding the introduction of a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  As has been made clear in the past decommissioning is one of a range of options being considered for reducing the size of our fishing fleet.

  Mr. Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on Tuesday, 11 July,Official Report, column 453, he is able to estimate the number of vessels which will be taken from the United Kingdom fishing fleet in each of the years 1989, 1990 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No. The target reductions for multi-annual guidance programme purposes are expressed only in terms of tonnage and engine power. The number of vessels withdrawn will depend on action taken to reduce fleet capacity following our consultations with industry organisations.

  Eggs
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to increase checks conducted by his Department into imported eggs.

  Mr. Maclean
  We already inspect a significant proportion of eggs imported to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the egg marketing standards regulations of the European Community.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I look forward to meeting the new chairman of the Forestry Commission, whose appointment begins on 1 September, when we both have had a chance to settle into our new posts.

  Small Farmers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had in the Council of Ministers regarding EC schemes for direct income support for small farmers.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's position with regard to direct income support for small farmers.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Council agreed in January on the main lines of a Community scheme for direct income aid. A regulation came into effect on 1 April establishing a framework under which member states may draw up plans to pay transitional aid to farms affected by the reform of the CAP. Proposals for detailed implementing regulations are now under discussion and need to be agreed before member states may submit new schemes, as required, for approval by the Commission.

  I have no plans at present to introduce an income aid scheme.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he last met the chairman of the Small Farmers Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have not met the chairman of the Small Farmers Association.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received seeking the introduction of a scheme of food labelling designed to inform consumers of food organically produced or reared and slaughtered under humane conditions.

  Mr. Maclean
  Initiatives taken within my Department led to the establishment in 1987 of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) which, on 2 May, launched detailed production and processing standards, a certification and inspection scheme and a UKROFS symbol and approved labelling to enable consumers to identify organic foods produced according to the standards. I hope that producers will take full advantage of this exciting development so that a much larger share of the rapidly growing consumer demand for such produce is met by home production.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether farming and environmental organisations received copies of his Department's consultation document on nitrate-sensitive areas.
  950
  Mr. Curry
  Yes. My Department's consultation document on the nitrate-sensitive areas scheme was circulated to a wide range of interests including farming organisations, the Government's conservation agencies and other environmental bodies.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many replies he has received in response to his Ministry's consultation document on nitrate-sensitive areas.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received over 100 responses to our consultation document on nitrate-sensitive areas.

  Women's Farmers Union
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Women's Farmers Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I last met the Chairman of the WFU at the recent Festival of Food and Farming and I look forward to meeting her again in the future.

  Cereals
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the need for further incentives to take land out of cereal production.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked by the President of the National Farmers Union to reconsider the levels of payment for set-aside in the United Kingdom. I have decided to maintain the rates unchanged.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the annual cost to the European Economic Community budget of growing a representative 500 acres of wheat in Norfolk in (i) 1988 and (ii) in the current financial year.

  Mr. Curry
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, an indication of the average cost of supporting 500 acres of cereals anywhere in the Community can be worked out by dividing the sums in the cereals chapter of the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund for 1988 and 1989 by the total cereals area of the Community in 1987–88 and 1988–89 respectively. This gives figures of some £16,800 and some £15,100 for 500 acres of cereals in 1988 and 1989 respectively.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers claimed in the last cereals year under the small cereals producers aid scheme for a co-responsibility rebate.

  Mr. Curry
  The present deadline for claims under the small cereals producer aid scheme is 31 July. We do not as yet have a final figure for claims submitted but all the signs are that the figure will be disappointingly low. I am therefore extending the deadline for claims to 30 September so that producers have the maximum opportunity to apply under this scheme.

  Country Landowners Association
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Country Landowners' Association; and what matters were discussed.
  951
  Mr. Gummer
  I have met the chairman of the CLA on many occasions in the past and look forward to meeting him again in the future.

  Council for the Protection of Rural England
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have not yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England but look forward to doing so at sometime in the future.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has recently discussed with representatives of other EEC countries the consequences for the single market arising from the continued refusal of the Community to recognise the qualification of environmental health inspectors in connection with the inspection of meat.

  Mr. Curry
  In any discussions on arrangements for meat inspection within the single market, I shall seek to ensure a continuing role for our environmental health officers.

  Food Research
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on his Department's support for research for the benefit of food-related industries.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department commissions research amounting to £16·8 million to support statutory obligations, policy development, the protection of consumers and work specifically directed to the improvement of competitiveness in the food industry. Support for work of direct commercial benefit to the industry will be phased out by the end of 1990–91 as a part of the Government's policy on near market research. This will not affect our commitment to food safety and other work on wider public benefit.

  A recent joint MAFF/DTI initiative on food processing sciences was announced in September 1988 as part of the LINK Scheme. £7 million has been allocated by MAFF and by DTI over a five-year period provided that this sum is matched by industrial contributions. This programme will concentrate on projects which will strengthen the industry's technical base in bioscience and encourage strategic developments in new processes, biotechnology and processing modelling and control.

  Soft Drinks
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received a copy of the recent London Food Commission report on the fruit juice content of some soft drinks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This report has recently been brought to the attention of the Department but I have not yet had an opportunity to study it. However, we have already 952
  circulated for public comment draft proposals for the revision of the Soft Drink Regulations 1964 which, inter alia would introduce a requirement for the declaration of fruit juice content on the labels of fruit juice based drinks.

  Tenant Farmers Association
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I hope to meet the chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association in the near future.

  Food Exports
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent trends in agriculture and food exports.

  Mr. Maclean
  Over the first five months of 1989, exports of food, feed and other agricultural products reached a record for the period of £1,978 million. This was 19·5 per cent. higher than the same periods of 1988 and 1987 respectively. It should be noted that exports of some basic agricultural products, such as grain, livestock and lightly processed foods, can vary considerably from year to year. But apart from this, exports of more processed food manufactured in the United Kingdom have been growing steadily for a number of years.

  Fisheries Ministers
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Fisheries Ministers; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Curry
  The next Fisheries Council is on 27 November 1989. The agenda has yet to be arranged.

  Net Sizes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to give incentives to fishermen to use larger mesh sizes for better conservation.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no such plans but we are actively considering possible improvements in technical measures to achieve better conservation.

  Food Bill
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received representations calling for the registration of food establishments as part of the forthcoming Food Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is one of the issues on which the Government have been holding extensive consultations as part of our proposed reform of food legislation. We have received a number of representations.

  Food Supplies (Dock Strike)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the public have adequate food supplies during the dockers' strike; and if he will make a statement.
  953
  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is monitoring the position closely and maintains regular contact with the food industry.

  I am confident that food supplies will not be seriously affected.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to take any further steps to combat fraud in the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have taken the initiative in the Council of Ministers on many occasions to press for further action to deal with fraud in the common agricultural policy and valuable progress is being made. The Commission has recently presented to the Council proposals to require member states to carry out an annual physical check on intervention stocks and a minimum level of inspections of export refunds, and to tighten up the system of audit checks on firms making or receiving CAP payments. I will continue to press the Council to take speedy action on these proposals.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the effect in the current year of the common agricultural policy reforms on intervention stores; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The process of CAP reform has contributed to substantial reductions in intervention stock levels. The latest estimates of stocks held in public stores show that since the beginning of this year stocks of the major commodities have been reduced as follows:

  Commodity

  Reduction in stocks ('000 tonnes)

  Reduction as a percentage of stocks at 31 December 1988

  EC

  United Kingdom

  EC

  United Kingdom

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Beef

  59

  7

  15

  28

  Olive oil

  105

  —

  30

  —

  Total cereals

  1,647

  582

  18

  48

  Butter

  57

  12

  56

  50

  Skimmed milk powder

  0

  1—

  0

  2—

  1 Less than 500 tonnes.

  2 United Kingdom SMP stocks at 31 December 1988 were negligible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, further to his reply dated 25 May,Official Report, column 744, concerning the common agricultural policy, he will explain the reasons for the increase in expenditure in 1988 of over 20 per cent.; and whether this was anticipated at the time of the Fontainebleau agreement.

  Mr. Curry
  As explained in my previous reply, the 1987 budget year carried only 10 months' expenditure. Because of the change to a system of delayed advances for funding from the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, 4,534 mecu (£3,261 million) of expenditure in November and December 1987 were charged to the 1988 budget. Total CAP expenditure for the 1987 calendar year was therefore 28,497 mecu (£20,418 million)—2 per cent. less in real terms than the expenditure 954
  charged to the 1988 budget. It is not possible to compare expenditure in calendar year 1987 with that in calendar year 1988.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table on the same basis as that given in the answer of 4 December 1984, Official Report, columns 105–116, showing for each of the commodities covered by the common agricultural policy (a) the amount currently in surplus, (b) the target/ threshold/intervention price in the United Kingdom, (c) the corresponding price in West Germany, (d) the corresponding central price for the European Economic Community, (e) the levy in the United Kingdom at the latest available date, (f) the world price and (g) the amount sold to third markets with financial assistance from the European Economic Community;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the tonnage of each agricultural product exported to non-European Economic Community countries under the common agricultural policy and the cost to the European Economic Community in each case; and if he will revise as necessary the figures given in his written answer of 28 April, Official Report, columns 315–16;

  (3) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated amount of each common agricultural policy product consumed in the United Kingdom in 1988, the height of the tariff or guaranteed threshold minimum price, the amount of the levy paid at the latest available date and the corresponding world price.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information on surplus production, as measured by self-sufficiency, is contained in the Commission's publication "The Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1988 Report", in particular, table 3.7.3. Details of institutional prices (in ecu and £ sterling) are contained in annex 1 of the note on the common agricultural policy price settlement 1989–90, deposited in the Library of the House on 17 May 1989. The prices applicable in Germany can be derived from the ecu prices using the green rates as follows: Cereals—2.37360, other crops and sheepmeat—2·36110; other animal products—2·35053.

  The import levies and threshold prices applicable in the United Kingdom on 21 July 1989 and the corresponding "world" prices are shown in table 1. I remind the hon. Member that the world prices shown are generally the lowest offer prices at the Community frontier which underlie the Commission's calculation of the variable import levies. These prices are the lowest recorded and it is likely that, on average, higher prices would have to be paid if larger quantities were to be purchased on world markets or if supplies to world markets diminished. Information on the consumption of agricultural products in the United Kingdom, as measured by "total domestic uses", is contained in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom, 1988". I must caution strongly against drawing conclusions from this particular array of data requested.

  Details of exports sold to third countries with financial assistance from the European Community are not available. Total exports from the Community in 1988 of selected commodities are shown in table 2; these will include some products exported without financial

  955
  assistance. An analysis of expenditure on export refunds by product in 1988 is set out in annex 2 of the draft 18th financial report for EAGGF guarantee section.

  Table 1

  Levy applicable in the United Kingdom, threshold price and notional "World" price on 21 July 1989 for main food Hems covered by the common agricultural policy

  Threshold equivalent price1

  Levy applicable in United Kingdom2

  Notional World" price3

  (£ tonne)

  (£ tonne)

  Common Wheat

  166

  72

  99

  Barley

  151

  72

  83

  Maize

  165

  94

  76

  Sugar (White)

  456

  4165

  300

  Butter (82 per cent, fat)

  2,428

  51,448

  1,021

  Cheese (Cheddar)

  2,514

  1,691

  880

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  1,406

  476

  959

  Beef and Veal

  2,781

  6l,701

  1,209

  Pigmeat

  1,519

  383

  905

  Sheepmeat

  2,403

  7

  8

  Poultrymeat

  1,049

  246

  864

  Eggs

  855

  156

  472

  Notes:

  All figures have been rounded to nearest £.

  1 For commodities for which there is no threshold price the following have been used: beef and veal—guide price converted to deadweight (using a killing out percentage of 53·8 per cent.); pigmeat—basic price; poultrymeat and eggs—sluicegate prices plus basic levy; sheepmeat—seasonalised basic price adjusted for stabiliser. All conversions at green rate.

  2 Levy is net of monetary compensatory amounts. Rates of levy vary for different tariff headings. The rates quoted are: beef and veal and pigmeat—carcase; poultrymeat—70 per cent. chickens; eggs—in shell.

  3Notional "World" prices have been calculated by subtracting the levy applicable from the "threshold" price. The beef price is also adjusted for duty. For pigmeat, poultrymeat and eggs the "World" price has been taken as the sluicegate price, less supplementary levy, where appropriate. The resulting estimate has been converted from ecu/t at the agricultural market rate of exchange: £0·762070 = 1 ecu on 21 July 1989.

  4 in practice the United Kingdom's imports from third countries are normally covered by the Lome convention and enter the Community levy-free.

  5 A special lower rate of levy is applicable to imports of butter from New Zealand.

  6 Most imports of beef from third countries are subject to special arrangements allowing entry at reduced levy rate.

  7 Imports of lamb under voluntary restraint arrangements with principal suppliers and related agreements are subject to a reduced charge of 10 per cent. ad valorem. Any imports outside these arrangements are subject to levies which cannot exceed the 20 per cent. tariff bound in the GATT.

  8 No appropriate "World" price is available.

  Exports from the European Community1 of selected CAP commodities to non-EC countries: 1988

  '000s tonnes

  Wheat

  12,387

  Wheat flour

  2,562

  Barley

  6,434

  Malt

  1,031

  Rice

  332

  Sugar2 of which:

  4,535

  Raw (white equivalent)

  24

  Refined

  4,511

  Olive oil

  144

  Oilseeds

  116

  Whole milk powder

  343

  Skimmed milk powder

  607

  Condensed milk

  383

  Butter and Buttermilk

  620

  Beef and veal

  615

  Sheepmeat

  6

  Pigmeat

  296

  Poultrymeat

  389

  Eggs

  82

  Wine3

  1,211

  Source: EUROSTAT.

  1 Excludes figures for Greece from August 1988.

  2 Includes raw sugar converted to refined sugar equivalent: I tonne raw sugar =0·92 tonne refined sugar.

  3 The figure previously shown for 1985 has been revised to 1,095 thousand tonnes.
  956
  Copies of the documents referred to are in the Library of the House.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Derek Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what income farmers have received from the 1988 oilseed rape crop; and if he will make a statement on the implications of the current prevailing price.

  Mr. Curry
  The value of oilseed rape output in the United Kingdom in 1988 is estimated at £242 million. Information on the income which farmers obtained from this crop is not available. The 1989 United Kingdom crop, like that in other member states, is expected to be smaller than the 1988 crop because of a smaller planted area. As a result, market prices are currently higher than at the same time last year.

  Meat Tenderising Injections
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will implement the recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council that intrajugular meat tenderising injections be prohibited.

  Mr. Curry
  We do not believe that the procedure is inhumane and in our view a ban is not justified.

  Nephrops
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals for nephrops to be designated a pressure stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no such proposals. The various nephrops stocks around the United Kingdom are either not subject to quota or where they are the quotas have been generally under utilised. We will, however, continue to monitor these stocks closely.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of' Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to alter the current regulations with regard to anthrax.

  Mr. Gummer
  I propose shortly to make some minor amendments to the Anthrax Order 1938 to allow an inspector of the Minister (as well as an inspector of a local authority) to serve a form A, declaring an infected place.

  There are no plans for any further changes.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers are in receipt of both payments from the intervention board for growing cereals and payments for subsequently storing such food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The intervention board contracts storage space for intervention cereals with storekeepers who have suitable premises and the necessary expertise. Records are not maintained to show whether any of the companies offer into intervention grain which they have grown themselves but the intervention board's policy is not to accept offers of grain for storage in the stores in which it is held at the time of offer. Nor would a company's offer of grain he allocated for storage in one of its own stores.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to announce a decision on the relocation of the intervention hoard.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considering with colleagues the intervention board's proposals to locate part of its work away from the south-east of England. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Cricket Bats
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent developments have taken place in tackling water mark disease and its effects on cricket bat production.

  Mr. Maclean
  A cricket bat willow research group was established on 3 May. This includes representatives of the growers, merchants and manufacturers, as well as representatives from the university of East Anglia, Essex county council and the Forestry Commission. The group has agreed that a voluntary levy should be raised on the sale of cricket bat clefts to fund research into methods of controlling watermark disease and to contribute to expenditure on inspection services.

  Research
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet the President of the National Farmers Union to discuss agricultural research.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have already spoken to the President of the National Farmers Union and have arranged to meet him when no doubt we will have a wide-ranging discussion.

  Whisky
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show the export earnings value of the Scottish whisky industry in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Curry
  The value of United Kingdom exports of whisky from 1975 is shown in the table. The figures include some small amounts of whiskey bourbon.

  Year

  £ million

  1975

  366·6

  1976

  439·7

  1977

  512·6

  1978

  662·8

  1979

  709·7

  1980

  747·5

  1981

  787·2

  1982

  875·4

  1983

  863·9

  1984

  937·3

  1985

  1,001·0

  1986

  1,075·3

  1987

  1,142·4

  1988

  1,297·6

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics (Her Majesty's Stationery Office)

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total quantity of radioactivity in the soil, food chains and water systems in the United Kingdom attributable to(a) fallout from Chernobyl (b) United Kingdom military nuclear bases and (c) the United Kingdom civil nuclear facilities, and what steps he is taking to clean up the United Kingdom environment from radioactive pollution arising from human activities.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has responsibilities for the food chain and the aquatic environment. The Department of the Environment has responsibilities for the soil and drinking water.

  It is not possible easily to assess separately the contribution of background activity and that attributable to other sources. However, the general overall picture is as follows:

  (a) The contribution from the 1986 Chernobyl accident was greatest in the north and west of the country where high rainfall coincided with the passage of the radioactive plume with a result that total radiocaesium levels in the soil from all sources were in the region of 30,000Bq/m2 in parts of Cumbria.

  (b) (c) UK military and civil nuclear facilities have made a negligible contribution to radio activity levels in the soil with the exception of the 1957 fire at Windscale which led to a significant increase in levels in Cumbria.

  959
  Details of radioactivity levels in the food chain and in surface and coastal waters around major nuclear installations can be found in my Department's terrestrial radioactivity monitoring programme and aquatic monitoring reports (copies in the Library of the House). The results of my Department's monitoring of foodstuffs following the Chernobyl accident have also been published regularly and copies placed in the library of the House.

  With the exception of certain areas of the United Kingdom where sheep are still subject to post-Chernobyl movement and slaughter controls, radioactivity levels in the food chain throughout the United Kingdom do not require any remedial action. In the areas where sheep are under control my Department is actively investigating ways of reducing radiocaesium availability and uptake by grazing animals.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities of radioactive wastes will arise annually from the disposal of the radiation

  Year

  Average price of standard white wrapped and sliced loaf (800g)

  Weighted average price of United Kingdom wheat at point of sale1

  Actual price Indices

  1979 price2 Indices

  Actual price Indices

  1979 price2 Indices

  p/loaf

  1979=100

  1984=100

  p/loaf

  1979=100

  1984=100

  £/tonne

  1979=100

  1984=100

  £/tonne

  1979=100

  1984=100

  1979

  29·3

  100

  76

  29·3

  100

  120

  95·92

  100

  84

  95·92

  100

  132

  1980

  33·7

  115

  88

  28·2

  96

  116

  99·30

  104

  87

  82·96

  86

  114

  1981

  36·3

  124

  94

  27·2

  93

  111

  108·92

  114

  95

  81·65

  85

  113

  1982

  37·1

  127

  96

  25·8

  88

  106

  113·74

  119

  99

  79·21

  83

  109

  1983

  37·6

  128

  98

  24·9

  85

  102

  124·80

  130

  109

  82·70

  86

  114

  1984

  38·5

  131

  100

  24·4

  83

  100

  114·59

  119

  100

  72·57

  76

  100

  1985

  40·2

  137

  104

  24·1

  82

  99

  112·25

  117

  98

  67·26

  70

  93

  1986

  43·0

  147

  112

  24·9

  85

  102

  111·18

  116

  97

  64·34

  67

  89

  1987

  43·7

  149

  114

  24·1

  82

  99

  111·00

  116

  97

  61·33

  64

  85

  1988

  46·3

  158

  120

  24·0

  82

  98

  3104·83

  109

  91

  54·32

  57

  75

  19894

  49·1

  168

  128

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Bread prices: Employment Gazette.

  Wheat prices: Annual Review of Agriculture; Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988.

  1 The wheat prices quoted are net of co-responsibility levies.

  2 Using the GDP deflator (at market prices).

  3 Forecast.

  4 January to June inclusive.

  Pesticides
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for the approval of a pesticide have been made in each of the last six years; and how many of these applications have been refused.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of applications for pesticides approval received each year since the introduction of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 is as follows:

  1987

  1988

  1989 (to date)

  Received of which:

  1,024

  1,324

  837

  Rejected

  283

  347

  324

  Refused

  N/A

  N/A

  84

  The figures distinguish between those applications which are initially rejected without evaluation due to insufficient supporting data and those refused approval following evaluation.
  960
  sources for food irradiation; what plans there are for their disposal; and if he expects any radioactive waste presently stored in the United Kingdom to be used as sources for food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  No radioactive wastes will arise from the sources used to irradiate food. When the source has decayed beyond its useful life, it will be returned to the supplier for regeneration. I do not expect any radioactive waste to be used as a source for this process.

  Bread and Wheat Prices
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will express the figures on the price of bread and wheat given in his answer of 3 May,Official Report, columns 124–26, with (a) 1979 = 100 and (b) 1984= 100.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Synthetic Chemicals
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations have taken place between his Department and the European Economic Community Commission about its draft proposals on the production and marketing of agricultural products and foodstuffs obtained without the use of synthetic chemicals; and what United Kingdom bodies he intends to consult when such proposals are submitted to the European Economic Community Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 1987 my officials have attended five meetings in Brussels with representatives of the Commission of the European Community and other member states held to discuss a succession of draft proposals put forward by the Commission on the production and marketing of organic foods. On a further occasion in October 1988 my officials hosted a meeting in London, attended by a representative of the Commission and by the Chairman of the United Kingdom Register or Organic Food Standards (UKROFS), in order to explain to the Commission progress towards establishing
  961
  UKROFS standards. After the UKROFS standards were announced on 2 May 1989 copies were sent by my officials to the Commission.

  Once the Commission's own proposals are submitted to the Council of Ministers it is my intention that, so far as is practical, there shall be detailed consultations with the UKROFS board and with a wide range of bodies representing the producers, processors, manufacturers, retailers and consumers of organic foods.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on food safety.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall be making a full statement this afternoon.

  Liscombe Experimental Husbandry Farm
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the agricultural industry has shown itself willing to finance near-market research work at the Liscombe experimental husbandry farm.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. As explained in a reply on 10 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), a local industry consortium has secured a significant level of commitments to fund a programme of near-market research and development at Liscombe experimental husbandry farm.

  Zoonoses Regulations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost per test of applying the zoonoses regulations to egg laying flocks and broiler chicken flocks.

  Mr. Curry
  The Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989 requires rearing, laying, and breeding flocks to be monitored for evidence of salmonella. Cloacal swabs are taken from laying birds and tested at intervals from point of lay to slaughter (22 to 70 weeks of age) and dead birds are examined between 26 and 30 weeks of age.

  Many laboratories in both the public and private sectors carry out these tests and average cost figures are not available. The Government's veterinary investigations centres would expect to charge £109 per house for this range of tests on laying birds required under the order.

  Statutory Instruments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for each of the last five parliamentary sessions, including the 1988–89 session, if he will list the number of statutory instruments that were issued by his Department; how many were negative and how many affirmative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Records of statutory instruments issued by the Ministry are held by calendar year. The details are as follows:

  Affirmative

  Negative

  Made and Operate

  11989

  7

  31

  11

  1988

  11

  62

  17

  1987

  14

  73

  25

  962

  Affirmative

  Negative

  Made and Operate

  1986

  12

  88

  18

  1985

  8

  59

  22

  1 To date.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the farm woodland scheme has encouraged the planting of broadleaved trees.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. Planting proposals received to date show that an average 75 per cent. of the area to be planted under this scheme will be with broadleaved trees.

  Fish Landings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the weight and value of landings of fish in England and Wales in each of the past ten years; and what proportion they represent of the total United Kingdom figures for those years.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Total weight and value offish (including shellfish) landed into England and Wales, by British and foreign vessels, for the years 1979 to 1988

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Percentage of United Kingdom

  Value (£000)

  Percentage of United Kingdom

  1979

  556,070

  60

  165,179

  56

  1980

  471,596

  55

  139,617

  54

  1981

  339,956

  42

  119,512

  47

  1982

  305,601

  36

  129,754

  45

  1983

  283,573

  34

  125,654

  41

  1984

  208,237

  26

  117,750

  36

  1985

  180,685

  22

  123,857

  35

  1986

  172,317

  22

  137,561

  35

  1987

  217,845

  26

  169,478

  37

  1988

  188,378

  24

  157,939

  37

  Source: Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office Annual Publications.

  Shell Fish
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what control powers he ensures that the siting of shell fish farms causes minimal disturbance to ecologically important areas; whether he intends to seek to introduce new controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 25 July 1989]: My Department exercises no specific powers in relation to the siting of shell fish farms, though all such businesses must register with the appropriate fisheries department under the terms of the Registration of Fish Farming and Shellfish Farming Businesses Order 1985. However, shell fish farms are subject to a range of statutory controls including those relating to sites of special scientific interest notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Moreover, all such operations must first obtain the consent of the owner of the seabed, normally the Crown Estates Commissioners. There are no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) to what extent he takes account of
  963
  a possible breach of section 14(1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 when granting a licence for alien shell fish cultivation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) under what circumstances he licenses the cultivation of alien shell fish in British waters; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) under what powers he can prevent the release of alien shell fish into the wider marine environment; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what monitoring and assessment he is making of the environmental impact of shell fish farming of alien species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answers 25 and 26 July 1989]: Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to Great Britain in a wild state; or which is included in part 1 of schedule 9. However, introductions into the wild may be authorised by a licence granted under section 16 of the Act and after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. Such licences may be general or specific and subject to appropriate conditions. Presently general licences permit releases of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and Portuguese oysters (Crassostrea angulata). The release of any other species of alien shell fish would require a specific licence. Moreover, all deposits of molluscan shell fish whether native or non-native, are subject to licensing under the Molluscan Shellfish (Control of Deposit) Order 1974, as varied.

  The suitability of alien shell fish for cultivation in our waters is thoroughly investigated by my fisheries scentists, who take account of the scope for natural recruitment and potential ecological impact. In addition, appropriate steps are taken to ensure that any imported broodstock are free from alien shell fish parasites or disease. There is no evidence of natural recruitment or ecological harm having arisen from the cultivation of Pacific or Portuguese oysters.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. Gummer
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: 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.
  964
  My Department has contributed significantly to this process. We have consistently worked for a more market-orientated common agricultural policy. Our success in this area has been of benefit to both large and small businesses in the agricultural industry. Important reforms of the CAP were brought into effect in 1988–89. Agricultural spending has been brought under control and surpluses have been greatly reduced. These achievements have helped to create a much more secure framework within which farmers can make their business decisions. They have also fostered a competitive and efficient industry, well placed to benefit from the opportunities which the completion of the single internal market will bring.

  We have sought to enable farmers to benefit from the economic climate that this Government have created. We have encouraged farmers—in particular those with smaller businesses which may not be viable on the basis of agriculture alone—to look carefully at their assets so as to identify all possible opportunities for generating income; and we have introduced a range of income-generating schemes, designed to encourage farmers to seek alternative sources of income without creating surpluses. Within the last 12 months we have introduced the farm woodland scheme, set-aside, the farm and conservation grant scheme, and feasibility and marketing grants under the farm diversification grant scheme. We have also expanded our efforts on existing schemes, such as environmentally sensitive areas. These measures not only help the individual participants, but bring environmental and other benefits, contributing significantly to the viability and vitality of the rural economy as a whole.

  All the schemes operated by my Department are closely monitored. Reports on particular schemes are published from time to time.

  Pigs
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision he has reached concerning the authorisation of a system of cheque book licensing for swill pig feeders to facilitate easier transportation of pigs to the abattoir following representations made to him by a delegation of swill pig feeders from Harefield led by the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

  Mr. Curry
  I intend to review the legislation which governs the movement of pigs within Great Britain as soon as our current programme of more pressing legislative changes permits. My specific aim will be to relax the licensing requirement of the movement of swill-fed pigs to slaughterhouses—if the review indicates that this is desirable.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Sheffield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

University of Surrey: Student Grants
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider assessing Guildford on the same basis as London for the purposes of paying student maintenance grants and discretionary support for students at the University of Surrey.
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords. The London rate of grant is intended to reflect the exceptional costs incurred by students studying in the capital.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the courtesy of his Answer, but not for its substance. Is he aware that students at Surrey University in Guildford receive some 23 per cent. less per annum in student grant, amounting to about £500 a year, than their neighbours just up the road, and less than 20 miles away at the Royal Holloway College in Egham? That is completely unfair to the students at Surrey University. As my noble friend has some obligation under the new social security arrangements, will he take action to see that no one is worse off under those arrangements?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. We recognise that there are areas of the country outside London where living costs are comparatively high. Guildford is just one such area. However, the London rate is currently only payable to students of the University of London, which includes Royal Holloway and Bedford New College in Egham, and to students at other institutions inside the metropolitan police district. A line must be drawn somewhere, and institutions outside it will always contest the decision.
Guildford and Egham may both be in Surrey, but Guildford is a further 10 miles from central London. However, I shall certainly take on board my noble friend's suggestion and draw it to the attention of the Universities Funding Council. I should add that students suffering particular financial hardship after benefit entitlement is withdrawn will be able to apply to their institution for help from the access funds announced in the White Paper on top-up loans.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as someone who still teaches at London University, I certainly do not wish to say anything which would be of disadvantage to London University students. However, would the
1558
Government be willing to look more carefully at the question of the cost of living differences? The noble Viscount is quite right to say that Guildford is not the only anomalous case; but the existence of more than one anomaly does not mean that there are no longer any anomalies.
Therefore, would it not be a good idea to look more carefully at the differences in the cost of living in many places with a view to making the student grant system slightly more rational and effective?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree that there is an anomaly here. It is true that the present rules operate to the advantage of certain students of the University of London. However, I can tell the noble Lord that we are currently reviewing those rules but I cannot at the moment encourage hope that the present boundary will be significantly extended.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords. is my noble friend aware that if there is an anomaly in Guildford everyone would wish the situation to be looked into? However, is he also aware that if he widens the London boundary for grants he will be opening a very wide door indeed—and not only for students?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has underlined the problem.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the last words of his answer to me about the possibility of some help from the new access funds is encouraging? I see that it is possible that the Universities Funding Council can make grants to universities in cases of hardship. Is my noble friend also aware that it is quite clear that there is hardship in this particular case? Further, will my noble friend put his considerable influence with the Universities Funding Council in the scales to ask the council to consider the case of the Surrey University very sympathetically?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. I shall certainly do so. I must say that on the last day of term, so to speak, I am extremely encouraged to know that my noble friend thinks that I have that amount of influence.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount include in his considerations Brunel University, of which I am chancellor, in that it is much closer to London than the university in Guildford?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the problems.

Passport Office
11.5 a.m.
Lord Borthwick Lord Borthwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to improve the management of the Passport Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we intend to give the Passport Office the status of an executive agency. With the computerisation of the passport issuing system, a change to agency status will incorporate private sector experience and will enable staff to concentrate on the primary aim of improving the service to the public.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for answering my Question; I am very glad to hear what he said. However, will it mean that we shall have to wait still longer at the Passport Office? I ask that because the original offices have been computerised, but it now takes considerably longer to hand out passports.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole idea of computerising the passport offices is so that passport applications can be dealt with more expeditiously. However, as always happens when one first incorporates computers one very often runs into teething troubles.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that computerisation is very often used as an excuse for increased inefficiency?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether it is increased inefficiency or not will depend upon the particular exercise concerned. However, I can assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, as the Government have been repeatedly chivied over passport delays, we are spending £7 million in order to prevent the very delays of which your Lordships frequently complain.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when the anticipated improvement will take place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole time.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister give any assurance that the new organisation will go back to first principles? The passport system centrally in London was devised when very few people required passports. However, they are now required by almost the whole population. Therefore, why should they not be available at every central post office, for example, in any town? Why should their availability be limited to three or four centres, when we have not only computers but also fax machines?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the availability of passports is not limited to three or four places; there are in fact six passport offices. My noble friend suggested that one should be able to obtain a passport over the post office counter. Of course, one can obtain a British visitor's passport in that way. However, the passport itself is a uniquely important document: it signifies a person's identity and national status. Therefore, I think that other countries would expect passports to be subject to a reasonable standard of government approval. That is why passports have to be dealt with competently.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a result of the recent difficulties experienced by the Passport Office, and because of correspondence I received, I went on three occasions over a period of a fortnight to visit the office? Of course, it has difficulties. On one day I could see that there were long queues and the next day there was almost no one there. There is a need for better computerisation. Perhaps I may request the Minister to understand that, despite being hard pressed, the staff of the Passport Office have always maintained a high efficiency and commendable courtesy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his last observation. What he said does not always come over from the people who are frustrated at delays at the Passport Office.
I was not aware that the noble Lord had been down to the Passport office on three occasions. Perhaps I may tell him that about 80 per cent. of the applications for passports are handled by post. When people want things very quickly they tend to go and queue, and that contributes to the problems. I only hope that the rest of your Lordships who intend to take a holiday this year have already equipped themselves with the appropriate passport.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the thought of computerisation strikes terror into many of us? In addition, from the private angle, will the staff be enlisted from certain banks in order to improve the efficiency of the Passport Office?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Baroness finds that computerisation strikes fear into her, I can assure her that that happens on many occasions when computers are introduced. People are frightened of them. But on the whole they are necessary and improve speed. The noble Baroness shakes her head; but when she sees and uses the new common format passport which is machine readable she will find that it expedites her going through the frontier controls. I am afraid that I have now forgotten the other part of her question. I assume that it was nothing of great moment!
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, would it not solve the problem if passports were abolished within the Common Market? Does not the Minister agree that any criminal can obtain a passport far more easily than going to a post office?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that passports should be abolished and he would not expect me to agree. With regard to the activities of criminals, of course they have methods of obtaining passports, as they have of obtaining other things which they should not have. However, that is no reason for abolishing the passport.

London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
11.12 a.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Noble Lords may recall that I moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 3rd April this year. I said then that the Spitalfields fruit and vegetable market, originally created by Royal Charter in 1682, was effectively being strangled by the City's and its own traffic, swamped by its own refuse and working from badly obsolescent buildings.
In the words of the preamble to the Bill:
"The age and condition of Spitalfields market is such that the market fails to meet modern market needs and practices, and the situation of the market is inconvenient for transport facilities and proper regulation".
The purpose of the Bill is to permit the move of the market to a place about four miles away called Temple Mills, at Hackney Marshes. The Bill is only required at all because the charter of 1682 and a body of local legislation dating from 1902 relates to the market at its present location. If the market is to be moved, so must the charter and the local legislation be moved. The Bill does not purport to confer planning permission for anything.
The Corporation of London, which is the freeholder of Spitalfields market, the market authority and the promoters of the Bill have very properly been put to proving the preamble from which I quoted. Here I am delighted to pay tribute to the Select Committee of this House which considered the Bill. The Select Committee comprised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, its chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil, my noble friend Lord Carnock, the noble Earl, Lord Grey, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It sat for 12 days hearing evidence and submissions and visited both the site of the market and the proposed relocation site at Temple Mills. I expect that this was longer than their Lordships had initially thought they would need and they worked with the great thoroughness and care which characterises Select Committees of this House. We are much in their debt.
When I say that the Select Committee was of the unanimous opinion given on 26th June 1989 that the Bill should proceed without amendment, let it not be thought that it was regaled for 12 days by nothing other than submissions and persuasion from the City Corporation. That is made very clear from the meticulous special report which the Select Committee has issued. The Bill was attacked on a number of grounds but emerged unscathed.
I shall mention just two matters arising from the committee proceedings. First, the petition of the community group called the Campaign to Save Spitalfields from the Developers in reality invited the Select Committee to refuse or reverse a planning permission for the redevelopment of Spitalfields after the market had potentially moved. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets had granted that permission long before there was a Bill.
Secondly, I know that the Select Committee was greatly concerned about increasing the volume of
1562
traffic, however slightly, on the busy A.106 trunk road which serves the new site. It sought evidence from the Department of Transport before coming to its unanimous conclusion in favour of the Bill as it stood.
When I moved the Second Reading, I presented this House with a case to be proved. I believe that I return today with that case examined and proved, right down to the detail of the two minor drafting amendments about market rights and obligations at the new site made by the unopposed committee. I believe that we look forward to seeing a market fit for the 21st century which this Bill offers.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Renwick.)
11.15 a.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was greatly concerned with the effect which the proposed move of the market might have on the Spitalfields community. I agree that this aspect is of vital importance. As it says in its special report, the committee was impressed by the sincerity and commitment of those residents and business people who desire to keep the market at Spitalfields.
Perhaps I may first say a few words about the present condition of the market. It is out of date. It was built for the horse and cart and now has to contend with the juggernaut lorry. There is intense traffic congestion within the market and traffic congestion outside it. Parking facilities are inadequate, with only 160 spaces for off-street parking when something like 1,600 are needed. The area available for manoeuvring, loading and unloading is totally inadequate. Basements under some of the internal roadways are in danger of collapse under the weight of traffic. Drainage and toilet facilities are quite inadequate. Forklift trucks are difficult to operate owing to congestion and inappropriate road levels. Perimeter warehouses are of the wrong height for modern working methods. Rubbish abounds during working hours; the place cannot be kept clean owing to the congestion. When the rubbish consists, as it does, of rotting vegetables and fruit and broken crates, it is dangerous rubbish.
The market buildings cannot realistically be pulled down and rebuilt. The committee was told that that would disrupt the market for some four to five years and successfully kill it.
Perhaps I may take up a moment of your Lordships' time by reading a little of what four residents in Commercial Street have said. Commercial Street runs alongside the market and is part of the inner London ring road. I quote:
"The market is too small for the huge juggernaut refrigerated lorries to even go in; so during the day, when they double and treble park on Commercial Street, they cause traffic jams stretching for miles. At night they park right under our windows for hours with their fridges on.
There is nowhere for the stalls to throw away: heir rotting fruit and vegetables, so they dump it in the gutter outside our houses and there it sits, mountains of rotting fruit. The rubbish is not cleared away until early evening and by that time it has been scattered by tramps, is covered in flies and smells so bad it permeates through and makes the whole house smell.

1563
The cars belonging to market customers clog up all the surrounding streets; they park on the pavements, so sometimes you can't even walk through …The forklift trucks also make life a misery as they try to operate in small shops, and break up paving stones making it dangerous to walk.
We feel that if the market was moved and the area redeveloped it would be a very nice place indeed to live".
The local authority is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It has approved the move. Before doing so, it conducted what was described as the fullest consultation it had ever undertaken. Its conclusion was:
"It is clear that the majority of local residents and businesses would not object to the market moving".
Those objecting to the move criticise the plans for redeveloping the site on the ground that the redevelopment will not alleviate the basic problems of the area—unemployment and shortage of low cost housing. These are planning matters. It is territory which rightly belongs to the elected representatives of Tower Hamlets and their planning officers, and not to the Select Committee. The committee felt that it ought not to trespass on planning matters. This was the message spelt out by your Lordships' House when considering the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he will elaborate a little on the terms of reference which the Select Committee perceived for itself. As I understand it, the Select Committee in another place concerned itself with planning matters and went so far as to make amendments which affected the Section 52 agreement. Is there a difference between the procedure of this House and that of another place on the proper remit of Select Committees? If not, why does there appear to be a difference between your Lordships' Select Committee and the Select Committee of another place?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am not able to say why another Select Committee may have taken a different line on planning matters.
During the debate on Private Bill procedure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said:
"I am told that the promoters of the Spitalfields Bill, currently before your Lordships' House, have behaved immaculately in that they have obtained all the necessary planning consents before coming to Parliament for just that section of the Bill that requires your Lordships' approval".—[Official Report,17/5/89; col. 1204.]
If the proper course is for the promoter of a Bill to seek planning consents before the Bill is introduced into this House, I respectfully suggest that it must follow that it would be wrong for this House to re-examine planning matters and therefore act as a court of appeal from the planning authorities. That is the view which the committee took. I respectfully submit that it is the right view.
At the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said:
"The onus must be on the promoters of the Bill to convince your Lordships in your Select Committee that this Bill, to which there has been such wide objection and which will have so dramatic an effect on the community in which the market is at present situated, is on balance justified. The objections which
1564
have been made to the Bill are serious objections which deserve to be treated seriously".—[Official Report, 3/4/89; col. 972.]
The committee sat for 12 days. It heard 19 witnesses. The transcripts of arguments and evidence considered by the committee run to well over 600 closely typed pages, plus numerous documentary exhibits. After considering that volume of material, the committee was unanimous that the onus to which the noble Lord referred was discharged and that the market move was justified.
I should like to turn briefly to the new site at Temple Mills, which has everything in its favour subject to only one qualification. The site is two and a half times the area of the existing market. It will have more than 1,600 off-street parking spaces compared with the 160 spaces in the existing market. It will have proper refuse disposal facilities. The only qualification is that vehicles coming to the market and departing by the northern route will add to the existing traffic congestion in the Leyton area, until such time as the projected M.11 link road is operative. That was a matter of great concern to the committee. It would not be practical to defer the opening of the new market until the road was built. Market traders could not be expected to commit themselves to a move at an unknown future date; nor could the development consortium building the market be expected to commit itself to a development which would be sterilised until an unknown future date.
The alternatives, as the committee saw them, were the rejection of the Bill or acceptance of a temporary increase in traffic congestion. The committee formed the view that the Bill should be allowed to proceed because, first, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, the relevant local authority, approved—planning permission has been given—and, secondly, because the road affected is a trunk road and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry of Transport approved. The committee considered that it ought not to override the decisions of the local authority and in this case also the Ministry of Transport, those being the bodies entrusted by Parliament to decide such planning matters.
In conclusion, I should like to quote a sentence from the special report. It is the final sentence of paragraph 13:
"At the same time the Committee wish to express and emphasise the further view that it is, in their opinion, highly desirable that the M.11 link road should be completed at the earliest practicable opportunity in order to relieve the existing traffic congestion and its aggravation as a result of the relocation of the market".
It is the hope of the committee that those in government concerned with the road system will be able to effect what the committee consider to be so important. There is nothing more I need say. I ask your Lordships to support the conclusion of the committee and grant the Bill a Third Reading.
11.30 a.m.
Lord-John Mackie: My Lords, I must apologise that my name is not on the list of speakers. However, I met our chairman yesterday, who urged me to say a few words in his support. I told him I would be

1565
saying a few words, but not necessarily in his support. However, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord: he did a first-class job in keeping everyone in order. I was particularly impressed with the way he dealt with counsel who was answering a simple question with a 10 minute speech. Halfway through the speech, our chairman stopped him and said, "What you are saying 'Mr. Smith' is 'yes'".
The Select Committee spent the first week or five or six days taking evidence. As our chairman said, we were flooded with briefs, photographs, plans, graphs and goodness knows what. The stack of stuff I have is quite tremendous. It is a big job to consider everything and try to arrive at decisions. Then we went to see the sites. I cannot add anything to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has said about the condition of Spitalfields, except that I think a complete lack of discipline has been allowed to creep in as regards parking and rubbish. The whole running of the place has been allowed to go downhill.
There is, of course, a very strong case for moving the market because of the structure of the site and various other matters. However, I am not sure that there is sufficient enthusiasm as regards looking into whether it would be better to have a smaller and more efficient market on the site. After all, the vegetable trade is changing very rapidly. Supermarkets and hypermarkets are being built all over the country. They buy direct and do not go through a market. A lot of the witnesses admitted that that process was cutting down the business of markets. One has only to go to Nine Elms to see how many empty stalls there are there which were thought to be needed at the time of the move from Covent Garden.
I wished to make the point that perhaps we do not need such a big market as the one that is planned for Temple Mills. However, the land is available and there it is. The value of the site at Liverpool Street must be tremendous. I think that had a fair amount of influence on the pressure to move. That is my own opinion, but one would have to be pretty naive not to believe that. We went to see the new site at Temple Mills. I was quite surprised to find it all beautifully levelled, fenced, gated and ready to be built on. All the plans had been drawn up for buildings and so on and passed by the local council. Arrangements had even been made so that the plans could be altered to suit some stall holders who thought the catering stalls should be higher.
The roadway approach system has been agreed with the Ministry of Transport and quite a lot of thought had been given to the traffic problem that will arise through Leytonstone and Leyton. I am glad our chairman emphasised the point that we all made which is that the M.11 link is very important to the area because of the enormous increase in traffic that will result from the new market site. I think the figure that has been given is something like 130 to 150 extra lorries, all concentrated between two and three in the morning and then up to eight and nine o'clock later on. That is going to make a tremendous difference to the residential built-up roadways through Leytonstone.
1566
It was amazing how many topics we had to discuss, whether we liked it or not. Our chairman tried to keep matters in order on the planning side, but the people of Leytonstone maintained that noise was the chief factor. Consequently, the question arose of double glazing in certain areas to prevent the noise. We learnt that double glazing is of two kinds; one simply insulates, while the other insulates and prevents noise. The two kinds are totally different. If one happens to have a bow window and one fits the double glazing which keeps out noise—it has to be placed at least four to six inches back from the window—it increases the size of the window. We spent quite a long time discussing the problem of whether the promoters should pay to add another six inches to the curtains of the good citizens of Leytonstone and Leyton. I thought that was quite an amusing issue to have to deal with.
I am not quite sure of my ground on this next point that I wish to make. However, as I said to our chairman, I believe that we were almost in the position of being presented with a fait accompli. The site was ready and all the plans were drawn up, including the plans for the redevelopment of the Spitalfields site, though I noticed in the recently issued press notice that they have been altered a little bit. I was not quite sure why the committee was sitting. The plans were presented to us already drawn up.
As regards the wealth of evidence we received on the plans and everything else, I think: quite frankly that all the people who made out their case—that is all on paper in the evidence—should have done so before a public inquiry. If the evidence had been heard by a public inquiry, the whole matter would have been much more satisfactory. Nevertheless, we heard the evidence, and it is in writing for anybody who wishes to read it, as our chairman very ably pointed out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his very clear exposition of the conclusions of the Select Committee, and to the noble and learned Lord and all the Members of the Select Committee for the devoted work which they clearly put into preparing this report. I wish to refer to a number of items. The first is the issue which the noble and learned Lord spent some time discussing: the traffic congestion at Temple Mills and the difficulty that will exist until the M.11 extension is open. Secondly, I wish to deal with the issue of the remit of the Select Committee, that is whether it is proper, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, to act as a court of appeal against the decisions of planning committees. Finally, I shall deal with the question of the status of this House at Third Reading in considering the report of a Select Committee of this kind.
On the planning issue, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I was chairman of the north-east area board of the Greater London Council from 1973 to 1974. That was the board responsible for transport and planning matters. What was then called the Leytonstone bypass, or the M.11 extension, was then a very active plan. It was

1567
well advanced in the planning process, and had been waiting for some time for its place in the Ministry of Transport's capital expenditure programmes. That was more than 15 years ago and the road is still not built. Despite the very proper urging of the Select Committee that it should be built as soon as possible, it is not easy to imagine how a greater sense of priority is going to be given to it simply because of the institution of the new market at Temple Mills. As is evident, these things take a very long time. I fear that the traffic congestion and the damage to the amenities of the inhabitants of Leytonstone will continue for a long time. That is a point of great regret.
I have been urged by the Campaign to Save Spitalfields from the Developers to table an amendment or even to oppose the Third Reading on those grounds alone. I did not feel it was proper to do either of those things, but I feel it is proper to draw the attention of the House to the likelihood that this serious situation,—it is worse than a nuisance for those involved—will continue for a long time.
On the matter of the remit of the Select Committee, I am bound to say that I agree with the Select Committee and its chairman. If planning consents have been given at both ends so to speak—that is, by both the departing and the receiving borough—it is difficult to see how your Lordships' House should seek, through a Select Committee, to overturn those planning consents.
That may seem inconsistent in a sense, because not only I but also the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Elton, referred in the Select Committee to the social problems in Spitalfields. Inevitably those social problems—the availability of suitable employment for local people and the availability of low cost housing in contrast with what is inevitably largely a commercial development—still exist.
The residents, traders and community organisations who from the start expressed dismay at the proposals and who presented their evidence to the Select Committee feel as strongly now as they did then. They feel that, through the actions of the local planning committees, with which they disagree, and the inability of the House—according to the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord—to take into account detailed planning matters, they have been brushed on one side. I do not believe for one moment that that was the intention of the Select Committee. I know that the Select Committee took their views seriously and gave them a good hearing. However, it is a major problem.
While we still have the Private Bill procedure, while we are required to go through it, and while issues such as market closures require the Private Bill procedure, there is a danger that local people will lose out both ways. If it were purely a planning matter there would have to be extensive public inquiries with extensive rights of representation and finally a decision by the Secretary of State. The disadvantage of the public inquiry procedure is that the Secretary of State can only say yes or no in toto. The advantage of the Private Bill procedure here is
1568
that it is possible, as has happened in this case, for a Private Bill to be amended by decision of either House of Parliament. The disadvantage of the Private Bill procedure from the residents and community orgainsations' point of view is that where planning permission has been achieved a large part of their objections cannot properly be considered by the Select Committee.
I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for me to put down a further amendment to the Bill at this stage. It would be wrong for me to oppose the Third Reading although I still have the very grave doubts about the development that I had at the beginning and also the doubts that were expressed by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. After all, this is a development which is pushed only partly by concern for the environment and in the interests of the traders. It is also pushed very heavily by the redevelopment value of the site which will be vacated. In my view the redevelopment value of the site has been allowed to crowd out the interests of many thousands of local people who would prefer, despite all the inconvenience which has been so graphically described, to keep the market there and to keep the community in the middle of it.
The only precedent of which I am aware for this House overturning at Third Reading a report of a Select Committee is the case of the Swanage Marina Bill. On that occasion it was done on a close vote because distinct new evidence was presented at Third Reading which was not available to the Select Committee; namely, the evidence of a town poll at Swanage. I do not believe that such new evidence has been produced here. Therefore, although in many ways I am not happy with the conclusion that has been reached, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to seek to overturn the Bill.
I repeat my thanks to the Select Committee for its very thorough investigation.
11.44 a.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise merely to say that I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right not to seek to overturn the decision of the committee, which sat with enormous thoroughness for 12 days. I believe that we are right to repose confidence in the findings of the committee and in the intentions of the City of London. I believe that at Second Reading we expressed all the guidance which should be given on the matter of the redevelopment and I can only refer noble Lords to that guidance.
11.45 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, it may be convenient if at this point I intervene very briefly to reiterate the Government's position on this Bill.
The Government have considered the content of this Private Bill and have no objection in principle to the proposals in it. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has general responsibility for wholesale markets, nor the Department of the Environment, have any outstanding points. In line with convention, the Government are taking a neutral stance on the Bill.

1569
It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. The Bill has been opposed in both Houses but has been allowed to proceed unamended. In particular the Select Committee of your Lordships' House considered the evidence very carefully and concluded that the Bill should proceed unamended, subject to the undertaking given.
Accordingly, we hope that the Bill will be allowed to pass.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his comments, most of which follow what he said at Second Reading.
At long last, after many years of planning and the uncertainties of the property market, the availability of the new site at Temple Mills for the Spitalfields Market, presents an opportunity to move the market. I believe, from the very telling evidence produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that we are all agreed that such an opportunity, if it is not taken now, might not occur again with the result that Spitalfields would slowly grind into the ground. I cannot believe that container lorries will get any smaller and there is certainly no sign of there being any more room for them in that area, with the add on effect of congestion. I believe that the area will now become a thriving commercial area, with many amenities for the local people.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for putting so clearly the position in relation to the Select Committee procedure as against the planning procedure. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the elected representatives of the two borough councils involved gave due consideration to the evidence in giving their permissions before the Corporation of London moved the Bill.
All that has now to be done is for me to renew my thanks to the Select Committee and its chairman for the work that they did.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Renwick.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Barony of Grey of Codnor
11.48 a.m.
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce rose to move, That the report of the Committee for Privileges be agreed to (HL Paper 59).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships the Report of the Committee for Privileges in this matter and in due course to move that it be accepted by your Lordships.
As noble Lords know, the case concerns the Barony of Grey of Codnor arising out of a petition from
1570
Mr. Charles Legh Shuldham Cornwall-Legh that the abeyance of this barony be terminated in his favour. The report of the committee is submitted in House of Lords Paper 59, a pleasantly but rather deceptively slim volume, but is accompanied by a supplementary volume numbered 59/1 which contains a more detailed report of the proceedings of the committee, part of which your Lordships may find rather good reading.
As noble Lords will see, the report itself contains eight recommendations which I shall draw to your Lordships' attention, accompanied by a learned opinion from my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, which will apprise your Lordships of the difficulties of what would otherwise appear to be a simple case. I feel that a little explanation—not in the nature of lecture, I hope—is necessary in this case for two reasons. First, there has not been a case of abeyance brought before this House for 50 years, and not all of your Lordships were present at that time. Secondly, the case itself is a little unusual, if not startling.
The abeyance itself has lasted for 493 years, which is not a record. There has been found a case of 547 years, but one must agree that, even by the standards of your Lordships' House, 493 years is rather a long time. Moreover, the present petitioner, Mr. Cornwall-Legh, has himself claimed only one twelfth part of the dignity, which again gives one pause for thought.
That makes it necessary to make it clear to your Lordships that this is a case—a rather exceptional case—of a barony by writ which is a peculiar type of peerage. Originally it was the primary source of peerage because peerages by letters patent, of which there are quite a number of representatives in this House, came in only in the 14th century.
Some noble Lords may not be familiar with the distinctive features of a barony by writ. There are two. First, as to origin, there is no document which describes the nature of the barony by writ or its tenure. The barony by writ arises, as one would think, from a writ of summons from the sovereign to attend Parliament, followed by, and this is very important, attendance in a Parliament—a properly constituted Parliament—by the person summoned. The necessity for personal attendance, on top of the issue of a writ, was, it appears, invented by that great lawyer, Lord Coke, in the 17th century. No one has been able to find out what he based it on, but it was obviously good sense because otherwise the House would have been deluged by people who claimed that writs had been issued. The necessity for sitting was obviously a sensible way of keeping down the numbers. At any rate, the necessity of sitting pursuant to a writ has been accepted ever since then. Noble Lords will see that that has an important bearing on the recommendations in this case.
So much for origin. Then one comes to the matter of descent. If one has a peerage by letters patent, as most of your Lordships do, the patent describes the nature of the descent as to heirs male, to heirs female, for life. It is there in the document. One does not have to look any further. But in the case of a peerage by writ of summons, there is no document and descent therefore depends on the common law

1571
and goes to heirs general. That brings about the situation of abeyance. It often happens that, if the holder of a barony dies without male heir and with only females succeeding him—daughters or aunts or collaterals—the females take as co-heiresses, no one of them being entitled to the barony. It is what is called impartible. Three co-heiresses have it, but no one has it in preference to the other. It is in abeyance until that situation is terminated. That situation remains until the abeyance is terminated, either through all the shares becoming reunited in one person or by the discretion of the sovereign.
There is one other point about the descent; namely, that co-heiresses take equally. There is no seniority and no primogeniture. The older has no preference over the younger, and the younger no preference over the older. There are cases in the books where abeyances have been terminated not in favour of the older of the co-heiresses but in favour of the middle one or of the younger one.
A peerage is in abeyance not having been amalgamated in the person of one single heir. What happens next, if one wishes to terminate it, is that a person—one of the co-heirs—puts in a petition to the Crown asking for termination in his favour. The Crown normally takes the advice of one of the Law Officers, the Attorney-General, who reports on the matter. He can either recommend acceptance or rejection of the claim or that the matter be referred to the House of Lords. That makes the important point that references to the House of Lords are facultative or optional. The House of Lords has no right to be consulted, although it often is. It is entirely in the discretion of the sovereign through the Attorney-General. When it comes to the House of Lords, the task of the House of Lords is strictly limited. It is to establish the facts, and it is for the establishment of the facts that the matter is referred to the Committee for Privileges.
I should refer your Lordships to the reference in this case in order that you may see the limitations on the duties of the House on this occasion. The reference in this case is in the following words:
"if His Majesty"—
I think that was King Edward VIII—
"being moved upon this Petition is graciously pleased to refer the same to the right honourable the House of Peers to examine the allegations thereof as to what relates to the Petitioners' title therein mentioned and to inform His Majesty how the same shall appear to their Lordships".
That was dated 3rd November 1936 and was signed "John Simon". That is the reference on which noble Lords are now called to act.
On the facts being found by the Committee for Privileges, if accepted by this House, the matter then goes to the Sovereign. It is then in the Sovereign's discretion to decide about the termination. The Sovereign may decide either not to determine at all or to determine it in favour of any one of the co-heirs. Unfortunately, it is not a matter for your Lordships. It is a matter for Her Majesty on, no doubt, taking appropriate advice.
I should mention two other points that arise out of the dates that I have given. Your Lordships may
1572
know that this House has previously been very concerned about the number of these abeyance claims, often dating a long way back to the misty past, which have come up and given rise to a great deal of inquiry and difficulty. So in 1926 the House established a Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, a distinguished Lord of Appeal, to inquire into the matter. The Sumner Committee produced an interesting and learned report, going into the whole history of these abeyances and peerages, and submitted a number of resolutions for presentation to His Majesty, King George V. That was done by an address presented to His Majesty which His Majesty accepted. His Majesty retains an ultimate discretion, but nevertheless the recommendations are those of the Sumner Committee and are normally thought to govern each case.
There are two important points contained in the recommendations. First, no abeyance should be considered which is longer in date than 100 years. Secondly, no claim should be entertained unless the claimant lays claim to at least one third of the dignity. Your Lordships will see at a glance that that particular petition would have fallen foul on both counts; it is much more than 100 years and much less than one third of a dignity
What happened was that the matter was referred by His Majesty to the Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, in July 1928. He gave a long advice and produced a report examining a number of the facts which was very valuable to us. He took the point that, as the claimant, who was then the present petitioner's father, had submitted his claim before the Sumner Address was presented to the Sovereign, he should not be bound by the limitations in those recommendations. Therefore, despite the fact that he was outside the recommendations, his petition should be admitted.
However, the father did not proceed with his claim. He died in 1934. The petition was then revived by his son, the present petitioner, in 1936. The succeeding Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, then took the matter under advisement and, one may think rather benevolently, decided that the son should have the benefit of the relaxation of the rules granted to the father and therefore that the son's petition too should be allowed in, notwithstanding the Sumner recommendations.
So on that the present reference was made to the House of Lords. Your Lordships' committee took the view that, the reference having been made, whatever we might think about it, we were bound by the reference, called upon to act under the reference and must do our duty under the reference. One must of course add that no similar claim could now be made with any hope of success because clearly it would be excluded by the Sumner principles.
The second point is also rather startling. Your Lordships will notice that the reference by Sir John Simon to this House was as long ago as 1936. Of course one expects that peerage claims should proceed at a somewhat dignified and leisurely pace; but 53 years is by all standards a little slow. When I had the honour of being nominated as chairman

1573
of your Lordships' committee in June this year I thought that we had better look into this matter. I asked for the file and a very bulky file was obtained from the administrative offices of this House.
It appeared that the present claimant had submitted to the office claims for prolongations. adjournments and extensions of time on a number of occasions during that period. They had been granted on account of World War II, because of his public duties, in view of the expense etc. At any rate extensions were given from 1936 going very nearly up to the present time.
On that, and at any rate without the disapproval of the Solicitor-General, your Lordships' committee took the view that it would not be right to blame the petitioner for this delay or to exclude him from the doors of the committee on that account. So we entertained the claim.
I come at last to the report. The committee made a very careful inquiry into this matter. Matters were put before it in the form of 105 propositions, each of which was supported by detailed evidence. That evidence extended into a great number of documents, comprising I believe 1,000 pages (although that figure could be a little misleading because one should not double count both the mediaeval Latin and the translations). At any rate there were a great number of pages in a great number of documents of great interest, as well as heraldic evidence, tombstones and so on which had to be looked at.
All that was very carefully checked by the Crown through the Treasury Solicitor's office and carefully analysed for us by the Solicitor-General. We had the benefit of some very learned evidence from Mr. Woodcock, the Somerset Herald. On the basis of that, these recommendations were put forward.
Perhaps your Lordships would be good enough to look at them. I can dispose of them fairly quickly. The first is:
"That the Barony of Grey of Codnor is an ancient Barony in fee".
There is no doubt about that.
The second recommendation requires a moment of attention because it states that it was proved by the sitting of Richard de Grey in Parliament on 17th December 1397 that the Barony of Grey was vested in the aforesaid Richard de Grey in the reign of Richard II. The case as originally put forward was that an ancestor of Richard de Grey in 1298 had first been summoned to Parliament. That is undoubtedly the case. Each of the three so-called "Lord Barons of Grey" were summoned to Parliament but your Lordships' committee was not able to find any evidence that they actually sat in Parliament. Indeed, the petition of the petitioner does not allege that they sat in Parliament. Your Lordships will appreciate the difficulty of establishing that a certain man did sit in a particular parliament and that that parliament was a properly constituted one.
However, we were perfectly satisfied—and your Lordships will find it analysed in detail in the opinion of my noble and learned friend—that Richard de Grey, the 4th baron, did sit pursuant to a writ in 1397; and with the consent of the petitioner
1574
himself, and with the approval of the Solicitor-General, your Lordships' committee decided that the right date to take was 1397 rather than the earlier date of 1298. That of course is of some importance from the point of view of precedence, because it would be a matter of considerable hesitation before your Lordships were inclined to displace a number of well established baronies in due order of precedence. One clearly should not do so without very definite evidence. Therefore we did not feel that it was right to date the barony earlier than 1397.
As to descent, this matter is really fairly simple in presentation although it took a lot of time to investigate. Your committee found that there were three co-heiresses of the last baron who died without legitimate, although not altogether without illegitimate, issue. They seem to have been very estimable people incidentally and were very well provided for by the baron at the time.
On page vi of the report your Lordships will find a short summary of the heirs. This is taken from my noble and learned friend's opinion and there are detailed pedigrees of course to be found in the report of the proceedings. There are three ladies: Lucy, Eleanor and Elizabeth. One of the main points that troubled the committee was whether any of those three or all of them ever existed.
It is clear that Elizabeth existed. However there was some doubt about the existence of Lucy and Eleanor. Your Lordships' committee came to the conclusion, mainly on the strength of a document of Henry VIII and some valuable heraldic evidence that satisfied us, that both Lucy and Eleanor existed as co-heiresses as well as Elizabeth.
Your Lordships will then see under Lucy the name of Thomas Cornwall—that is the descent through which the present petitioner claims; the other co-heirs claim through the other branches. Under Eleanor the present 7th Earl of Bradford claims as a co-heir. Under Elizabeth, as your Lordships will see in a moment, there is something of a problem.
Under paragraph (iii) in the resolutions, your Lordships will see the finding that the barony fell into abeyance between the heirs and co-heirs of the three paternal aunts Lucy, Eleanor and Elizabeth Zouche. Paragraph (iv) deals with the representatives and co-heirs of Lucy and those persons are listed. There are detailed pedigrees of those persons should your Lordships wish to consult them.
But your Lordships should notice the last words, which read:
"and the heirs, if any, of Mary, younger daughter of the 11th Lord Zouche".
That is a case in which inquiries ran into the sands. We were not able to find out whether Mary, daughter of the 11th Lord Zouche, had any heirs and therefore that has to be left uncertain.
Paragraph (v) is a clear case. The descent is clearly traced from Eleanor Newport down to the 7th Earl of Bradford, who now sits in this House.
Paragraph (vi) deals with the case of Elizabeth. We were able to find that she had issue but we were not able to discover whether any descendants of such issue now exist.
So this is quite in accordance with practice and the petitioner is required to satisfy the committee that all proper and possible inquiries have been made with a view to tracing these particular classes of issue. The committee is entitled to find that such proper inquiries have been made, and investigations conducted, and to put forward its report on that basis. That is what we have done.
Finally, we come to the conclusion that the barony is in abeyance before the aforesaid representatives and co-heirs and the heirs of the said Elizabeth Zouche; it comes to the total of 12 people; and finally, that the Barony of Grey is at Her Majesty's disposal.
As I have already made clear to your Lordships, it is now a matter for Her Majesty to decide in Her discretion what to do with the barony. The facts have been found by the committee. If your Lordships consider that the committee has done its job and has achieved the task referred to it by the Home Secretary in 1936, your Lordships may think fit to agree with this report. I beg to move that your Lordships accept the report.
Moved, That the Report of the Committee for Privileges be agreed to (HL Paper 9).—(Lord Wilberforce.)
12.11 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, I am amazed at my temerity in daring to put my name down to speak after him.
This morning we are witnessing the final stage of the appeal to the Crown to determine the abeyance of the ancient Barony of Grey of Codnor in favour of the petitioner, Mr. Charles Cornwall-Legh. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in his splendid oration on the mediaeval period, and his most detailed explanations, has put us all heavily in his debt. I should perhaps mention that two of my peerages are of the kind known as by writ—which he so well described—and my third peerage, Stourton, is by letters patent. I am therefore an animal of both types. As he pointed out to us, it is now 83 years since the petitioner's father began what was to become this very long case, and, as has been said, 493 years since this peerage was last in existence.
It will probably be the last such case to be allowed, since in 1927, as the noble and learned Lord told us, it was recommended that no petition for the determination of an abeyance should be entertained if it had subsisted for more than 100 years. But an exception was made for this particular barony as it had got into the pipeline, so to speak, just in time. The last case previous to this dealing with such a long abeyance was of course the ancient Barony of Strabolgi called out in 1916 in favour of the grandfather of the present distinguished holder of the title, himself a member of the Committee for Privileges whose report we are now discussing.
I find it interesting that the last Lord Grey of Codnor left a widow on his death in 1496—Katherine, who was sister to my direct male
1576
ancestor, Edward 6th Lord Stourton, and she enjoyed her Grey jointure until her death in 1521. Another point of interest for me about the Greys of Codnor is the fact that they were responsible for bringing the Carmelites to this country and settled them on their estates at Aylesford in Kent, where the priory of their foundation continues to flourish--very remarkably still with Carmelites.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, played a leading part in the Committee for Privileges and possibly it is the first time that a Scots legal brain has been found in a Law Lord dealing with an English peerage case. I found his broad sweep of inquiry most refreshing.
The finalisation of this case will give great pleasure to one whom I consider one of the greatest genealogists and heralds; namely, Sir Anthony Wagner, now clarenceux king of arms, a former distinguished Garter. It was he who was in charge of the research in this case from 1936 until 1983, when illness forced him to hand over the completion of the works still remaining to be done to Mr. Thomas Woodcock, Somerset Herald. It was Mr. Woodcock who was able to overcome one of the last difficulties by a piece of heraldic evidence—found, curiously enough, owing to the compiling of a new index of heraldic arms in the college by Sir Anthony in his time. It is amusing to think that it is only 140 years ago that Disraeli produced his Sybil where he invented Mr. Hatton, the famous peerage lawyer of the Inner Temple, who explained to a client, "If you wish to be Lord X, I will undertake to make you so and will give you precedence over every peer in the roll except three (and I made them) and it will not cost you a paltry £20,000 or £30,000".
The days of the Mr. Hattons have long gone and it is refreshing to see the result of such long labour and research rewarded by such a succinct report to this House. I congratulate the noble and learned chairman and all the other members of the Committee for Privileges.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my name is not on the list but I have been told that I may speak briefly with your Lordships' leave. I wish to say very little other than to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, not only for moving this Motion but also for the way that he moved it. It was a truly great personal privilege to be able to serve under his chairmanship. I think that your Lordships would wish a word of tribute to be paid to the noble and learned Lord not only for his industry in sorting out a mass of complex material—the noble and learned Lord referred to a bulky file; there were many bulky files with family trees, and so forth—but also his expertise in having sorted out before we sat all the salient issues. Without that, this hearing could have taken several weeks instead of a matter of days.
A word of gratitude is due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for his most detailed and erudite opinion with which all members of the committee agreed. I suppose one may end with a word of congratulations to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who remains premier Baron, albeit by a whisker.
12.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my name is not on the list either. The only reason I seek to make a very short intervention is not because the Government have any views on this—they do not—but simply to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his committee for what they have done. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that he found it a great privilege to serve under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I found it an enormous privilege to listen to the noble and learned Lord. His speech contained history, genealogy, and documents in Latin. It was fascinating. We are deeply grateful to him.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not wish to divest himself of a lecture. Had anyone put his speech into such a category—nobody did and nobody would—I can assure him that it would have been a very acceptable lecture.
12.19 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I need say nothing more in closing except to remedy an omission. I notice that the report does not contain the names of the Committee for Privileges set up by your Lordships. Your Lordships should know that it consisted of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, with his great experience as a Law Officer; the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to whom reference has been made, who was associated with these matters personally; the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; and my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey, of Tullichettle. I am grateful to them for all the support they gave and the kind words that have been said.
I should like to add our gratitude to the staff of the Judicial Office, who showed great efficiency in printing all these documents and making them accessible to your Lordships, thus enabling this matter, which only started its way in the committee in June 1989, to reach its final stage just before the end of the Session. That may console us a little for the long period which elapsed before then. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, the resolution and judgment to be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with white staves.

Equality of Pensions Benefits: ECC Report
12.20 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Pensions and Other Benefits (10th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 51).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister on his appointment and to say that we look forward to his initial speech in his new capacity. I should not like to let the opportunity pass without saying a word of appreciation for the contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has made to our
1578
deliberations of this nature. I wish him well in his new appointment.
We are discussing today a report from your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. Increasing interest is being taken in Parliament's response to proposed legislation emanating from the European Commission, but singularly little is said in public about your Lordships' contribution. Indeed a leader in The Times on this topic a day or two ago remained quite silent on that aspect. I make no special claim for the report we are considering today, but it is one of a whole series of detailed reports on proposals coming from Brussels, a good many of which have been debated, I think to good advantage, in your Lordships' House. I find it a little sad I hat the whole exercise is better known and more highly valued in Brussels than it appears to be in Wapping, or wherever newspapers now come from.
The topics covered by the report are not perhaps calculated to turn it into a bestseller, but they are topics of considerable importance which could affect the lives of a great many people. It is a somewhat complicated subject, so we thought it appropriate on this occasion to include in the published report the material on which we were commenting which had come from Brussels together with supporting information on various kinds. I hope that that has been of some help.
I should like to thank the members of the sub-committee and also our witnesses, especially perhaps the witnesses from Brussels. They bore out the comments that had been made on previous occasions that the officials who come to us from the European Commission to help our inquiries are hardworking people of the highest quality. The sub-committee was particularly fortunate in having Sir Alec Atkinson as its specialist adviser. As always we have been most efficiently served by our clerk.
The text of the draft directive is not in anything like its final form. The Commission will taking account of comments from other countries as well as from the UK. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about future prospects. My understanding is that during the Spanish presidency an attempt to produce a revised draft rather petered out. As France is one of the countries which sees especial difficulties, the topic may not feature among the highest priorities in the months of the French presidency.
Whatever the immediate prospects, the subjects raised by the report and the directive will not go away. It seemed to us most desirable that early progress should be made, as I shall seek to explain. Although the report makes various criticisms, we welcomed the proposal (as did most of our witnesses) as a further step to eliminating discrimination from the social security schemes of the member states. It is admittedly not easy to adapt a scheme such as that in the UK. which has its origin in a society in which the breadwinner is expected to be the man, but the effort must be made here as elsewhere.
There have been two relevant directives before this: one in 1979, dealing with statutory schemes and one in 1986, dealing with occupational schemes.

1579
The implementation of that second directive has recently been concerning us in what is now the Social Security Act. This third draft directive, dealing as it does with both statutory and occupational schemes, was intended by the Commission to fill in all the gaps and to complete the whole exercise. We for our part came to think that to regard this as the final provision was a vain hope, but I shall come to that a bit later.
The Commission witnesses explained that the directive was aimed at three main topics: survivors' benefits, family benefits and pension ages. As regards the first, survivors' benefits, Article 4 would require that widowers should become eligible for benefits on the same basis as widows. It seemed to us that that aim was justifiable with changing employment patterns, but there would be problems. In particular there would be difficulties about reproducing for widowers the pension which a childless widow can receive if she is 45 or more and might not find it easy to re-enter the labour market, when the widower of that age would usually be able simply to carry on working.
In the light of the risk that equal treatment might in the end result in a worsening of the position for widows, we thought that this was one area where a substantial period of years should be allowed for implementation.
In relation to the second topic, child benefit, the draft provides that parents living together should be given an option as to which of them should receive it. Our evidence was pretty well unanimous that the arrangements in this country, whereby the mother has the prior claim, were better and that we should not be obliged to change those arrangements. It seemed to us that this was one area where it was eminently justifiable to treat the two sexes differently. I hope I am right in thinking that the Commission is prepared to abandon this proposal.
The third topic, pension ages, is I suppose the most important of all the issues raised by the directive. I shall not attempt to rehearse the arguments or to speculate on the possible impact of such factors as the abolition of the earnings rule and the coming decline in the numbers of young people, but I shall content myself with stating the Committee's conclusion. Its conclusion is that there should be a decade of retirement where both men and women could choose their retirement age between 60 and 70. A pivotal age of 63 should be chosen. Those retiring at 63 would receive the equivalent of the current rate of full pension. Those retiring earlier would receive a smaller pension and those retiring later a larger one. As many women now expect to retire at 60, we thought it essential that the change should be phased in over a period of years and that women aged 50 or more when the legislation took effect should be able to keep their present rights.
I know that not everyone will agree with our conclusion. For example, the TUC would still like to see a common retirement age of 60 as in France. We are also conscious of the fact that the change would cost money; we are told some £700 million a year. I can only hope that that estimate is rather
1580
more accurate than the recent remarkable statistical invention of the Department of Social Security in quite another context.
But whether or not our conclusion is acceptable, it is essential that there should be an early decision. We pressed the then Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, about the matter. He accepted the desirability of reaching a conclusion but the most that he would say was that although the department would not have the report of the inevitable OPCS survey until 1991—and as we all know the department can never move without an OPCS survey—that did not mean that the Government would not come to earlier a conclusion. I hope that today the Minister will be able to go a little further than the double negative. The decision is certainly crucial for a whole variety of reasons.
There is a fourth aspect of the Commission's evidence upon which I must touch even though it did not relate to any mandatory requirement in the draft directive. I am referring to its hope that the directive will encourage greater individualisation in the sense that people should come to depend on their own individual entitlement and not on benefits derived from their spouse's insurance.
With the breakup of so many marriages one can see the force of that. This country took a step down that road when the married women's option to pay reduced national insurance contributions was taken away some years ago. But it was difficult to see how we could go much further down the road and, for example, put at risk of being left without adequate cover married women who are widowed after spending many years outside paid employment.
We were not greatly reassured by what we heard of experience in Denmark after it had, in effect, done away with derived benefits. I appreciate that there are cases of derived benefits which are not derived from a spouse. However, the point I have been making appears to me to be the most important.
There is the consideration that occupational schemes can hardly hope to make satisfactory provisions for survivors except by way of rights derived from someone who has been a member of the scheme. Indeed, the relationship between statutory and occupational schemes is in places somewhat blurred in the directive. Some employers, especially the big multi-national companies, can probably manage whatever the local state provision may be. But the CBI told us that many companies here fit their schemes into the state scheme and for their part the Government have been making something of a show of emphasising the increasing relationship between public and private schemes.
One particular problem which greatly exercised the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, during the passage of the Social Security Bill, was the fact that some companies, such as Marks and Spencer, which have a retirement age of 60 give an additional bridging pension to their male pensioners who, unlike the women, must wait until the age of 65 for their state pension. We go along with the Government's view that the Commission is likely to confirm that under the last directive that is not permissible. However, we express the hope that if that is so the new directive

1581
will be amended in order to legalise what appears to us to be a perfectly sensible practice and which will be needed until the state pension ages are made the same. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the House whether a letter has been sent to Brussels and whether a reply has been received.
So much for the four main points raised by the directive and the witnesses from the Commission. There are two other particular areas on which the directive is silent but which in our view cannot be put on one side in perpetuity. The first relates to indirect discrimination. By "indirect discrimination" I mean a situation which on the face of it is neutral but which in practice means that one sex is treated more favourably than the other. We have a definition or indirect discrimination in three of our Acts of Parliament.
The outstanding example in the present context is the position of part-time workers. If they are excluded and given no rights the argument is that that amounts to indirect discrimination because by far the majority of those concerned are women. In its present form the directive makes no attempt to deal with part-timers, nor does it attempt to define "indirect discrimination". We believe that somehow specific provisions ought to be made.
Then there is the baffling problem as regards private occupational schemes and the fact that in their calculations the actuaries take into account that as a generalisation women live longer than men. It is sometimes put that our arrangements ensure that women are poorer far longer. The previous directive about occupational schemes allowed different treatment for men and women taking account of actuarial factors but the present directive is silent on that issue.
I shall certainly not go into the problem today. I recently chaired a whole day's seminar between representatives of the actuaries and the Equal Opportunities Commission. I can fairly claim to have a lively appreciation of the complications involved. However, I call attention to the problem as one requiring further thought. Appendix 5 of our report refers to it and the fact that the issue remains unresolved is one reason why we cannot regard the present directive as saying the last word.
Lastly, there is the timetable. The Commission believes that these matters have been under discussion for so long that it is not unreasonable to fix three years from the final approval of the directive as the period in which legislation should be passed and brought into effect. However, in questioning, it conceded that that might be a shade optimistic. For our part we believed that it would be right to aim at enacting legislation within three years or a little longer but then to allow a considerable time for implementation, particularly, for example, as regards equal retirement age and survivors' benefits. The Government may take a different view but we await the Minister's reply on that and other issues with great interest
After looking at the list of speakers I know that we can first look forward to some interesting contributions. Although I have spoken for so long I have only lightly covered the ground. However, I
1582
hope that I have said enough to start of the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Pensions and Other Benefits (10th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 51). (Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
12.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the new responsibilities which he has taken on. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for his very comprehensive introduction of this report and also for the way in which he steered the committee, of which I was privileged to be a member, through this very complicated and difficult subject.
As he said, the report is concerned with a third directive on equal opportunities in social security—a draft directive intended to fill the gaps left by the other two directives. Like the noble Lord, Lord Allen, while warmly welcoming the draft directive I very much doubt whether it will succeed in filling those gaps and completing the process of equality between the sexes in social security.
The draft directive raises some fundamental issues and, as the noble Lord indicated, leaves out three very important areas. First, it does not deal with part-time workers of whom there are an increasing number in the UK. The committee has recommended that part-time work should be included. That is an issue to which I should like to return later. Secondly, the draft directive covers both direct and indirect discrimination but fails to define indirect discrimination. A common definition of indirect discrimination, understood and applied throughout the Community, is in my view essential if we are to achieve equality in that important and complicated area.
The recommendation made by the committee that definition should be included in the directive is even more necessary now in the light of the fact that the draft directive on the burden of proof, which contained a definition acceptable to the committee and which would have applied across the board to all directives, has been blocked by the Council of Ministers. I hope that the Government will feel able to reconsider their position in relation to that in the light of the report by your Lordships' committee.
Thirdly, the directive does not deal with the problems raised by actuarial sex-based data. The 1986 directive covered the area of occupational pensions but specifically excluded actuarial considerations. That decision was made by the Council of Ministers despite the advice of the European Commission, which advised that unequal pensions for equal contributions calculated on sex-based actuarial data could be contrary to the equal pay provisions under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. However, in the light of the Council of Ministers' decision, the Commission thought it inappropriate at this time to return to the subject under this directive.

1583
Your Lordships' committee has taken a different view and has recommended that the Community should mount a further investigation into the practical implications of abolishing those exceptions. I should have thought that that was the least we could do. My view is that this nettle should be grasped as there cannot be equality or social equity if men and women have to live on different pensions for equal contributions. The fact that on average women live longer than men does not lessen the needs of individual women pensioners, nor does it relieve the state from having the responsibility of supplementing those pensions if they are inadequate.
The longer this issue is left unresolved, the more litigation will be resorted to. Already in 1986 the European Court of Justice ruled in the Bilka case that occupational pensions paid under a voluntary contributory pension scheme were "pay" as that term is defined in Article 119. Rather than chip away at the problem through the court's interpretations, surely it would be far better to include now a provision bringing in sex-based data to the provisions of legislation.
Those are the omissions which have not yet been resolved by the draft directive. As I say, however, included in the directive are, as we are already aware from the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, some very fundamental issues. I should like to deal with two of those. The first is the question of derived benefits; that is, benefits to a spouse or a dependant accruing from another's contributions. The main recipients here are wives deriving benefits from husband's contributions. The draft directive favours individual benefits, although it provides for some flexibility to member states to choose between the two or to phase out derived benefits provided that whatever is proposed applies equally to both sexes.
I support the principle of individual benefits. I believe that it is right and necessary that each person should build up their own entitlements to both social security and pensions. Nevertheless, it will cause some problems and we have to treat this matter with care. However, the abolition of the married woman's right to opt out of national insurance and the introduction of the SERPS scheme were moves in the right direction. Some continuation of that sort of provision instead of, as we have recently had, a move backwards from those provisions would be going in the right direction.
I agree with the Commission in its explanatory memorandum that there is some insecurity created by the increasing breakdown of marriage. That creates very great insecurity, usually for women. There are also different family patterns emerging. All of those point to the necessity of women becoming self-supporting.
However, there are some difficult problems, as the noble Lord has indicated, which need to be resolved. Women who have relied upon or grown up in the expectation of benefiting from their husband's contributions must be protected, particularly in the short term. Therefore, a phase-in period would be necessary and, as the committee believes, a phase-in
1584
period of some considerable time. For example, we were told in evidence from the DSS that the consequences of women opting out of paying their own national insurance contributions will not disappear before 2020. Therefore, clearly there has to be a considerable bridging period.
There is also the question of part-time workers to which I should now like to return. This is largely a problem concerning women as regards the build-up of entitlement. Women who work part-time may not only not contribute to social security but could be prevented from doing so by the rules. The Bilka case and subsequent legislation has ensured that part-time workers have a right to be included in occupational pension schemes; but in 1983, according to the Government Actuary's report, some 2 million workers were ineligible for pension scheme membership because they worked part-time. There will still be problems arising from that situation for some considerable time. Moreover, many women in low pay are excluded from the state scheme by the lower earnings limit. In 1984, the latest year for which figures were available to the committee, some 2·75 million women were so excluded.
Women who leave the labour force for purposes of family formation or other family commitments, or even men who leave the labour force for domestic responsibilities, are covered by the home responsibilities protection, but women who work part-time or on a temporary basis and who might move up and down the lower earnings limit are in a very precarious position and have difficulty in maintaining their rights. Further to that, there is no incentive to increase pay above a certain point because once that point has been reached a person is obliged to pay national insurance on the full earnings and not just on the earnings above the limit. Such a person would find that, on coming into the scope of paying national insurance contributions, the take-home pay has dropped considerably. Therefore we must find an alternative method that covers all workers. The domestic commitments of women need to be examined also in terms of occupational pensions; otherwise there can be no financial independence for women on retirement in their own right.
The second area that I wish to comment upon is the equalisation of the pension age. Here your committee welcomed the fact that the draft directive is quite firm. While leaving it to individual countries to fix their own pension age or flexible age, the same conditions must apply equally to both sexes. As the noble Lord indicated, your Lordships' Committee recommended that there should be a decade of retirement between the ages of 60 and 70 where individuals can choose the date most suitable to them but that the pivotal age should be 63.
We recognise the difficulties here. Some of our witnesses recommended a pivotal age of 60; others 65. We also recommend and state in paragraphs 92(1) and 97 that there will be some financial implications. However, there are changes taking place which I feel make it difficult to forecast accurately what the financial cost will be. For example, the prospective abolition of the earnings rule is one of the new factors that has to be taken

1585
into account. The different patterns of retirement which are emerging is another.
According to evidence from the Equal Opportunities Commission the economic activity rate of men between the ages of 60 and 64 was 53.4 per cent. in 1986 compared with over 85 per cent. in 1975. That is a considerable fall, which indicates a clearly changing pattern. On the other hand, some women have made it quite clear through the cases that they have pursued to the courts that they want the right to be able to continue working after the age of 60. The committee would not want to see women forced to continue working beyond 60 because their pension is inadequate but it wants both women and men—here the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, about bridging pensions for men is important—to have an equal right to chose and to make that choice an effective one.
Therefore, the committee believes that the time has come for an early announcement by the Government of their proposals on the pension age. We know that for some considerable time there has been agreement on the principle of equalising the pension age, but your Lordships' committee would now like to know from the Government what their actual proposals are. If I may say so, irrespective of what might happen to this directive, that recommendation from your Lordships' committee, as well as some of the others, could be acted upon independently by this Government.
12.56 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on presenting the report so clearly and well. My own comments, which will be brief, are from the point of view of someone who has had to operate pension schemes in the past rather than someone on Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee.
The fact that people are living longer and that the number of those living in retirement seems to be ever increasing as a proportion of those in work means that the provision of pensions is becoming more and more a social problem as well as a financial problem. I say it is a social problem because a comfortable and secure standard of life for the ageing is accepted as a national policy; financial, because it is immensely expensive and will become an increasing burden on those still in work and therefore on the rate of tax.
The first point I wish to make is that state pensions and occupational pensions are quite separate problems. I know that they interact, but they are separate and should be dealt with in separate ways. The former is in fact a universal safety net and the latter is a form of top-up of considerable flexibility and variety. I start by looking at the state pension system. As the report clearly points out, the present arrangements are by no means equal between men and women. As the CBI stated in its evidence to the committee, it is high time that the Government came out clearly that they are committed to the principle of achieving a common state pension for men and women.
1586
The question of bridging between the ages of 60 and 65 affects many companies for the simple reason that many more people of both sexes are retiring at 60 and therefore women have the advantage of five years of having a larger income than men. That is what one normally calls discrimination in reverse. In Barclays Bank, and in many others, an advance pension is paid to men aged 60 to 65 and this will presumably be impossible to do if this directive becomes a regulation.
The committee came down on the age of 63 for both men and women, and that would incur a manageable increase in costs. The worry here is that too many men will take advantage of that and the labour force could be reduced at a time when there will undoubtably be skilled labour shortages. However, the recent government decision to allow earnings to continue without pension deduction will have the opposite effect and encourage employees to remain longer in work.
This new dispensation encourages the idea of a retirement decade in which people can have their pension entitlement increased each year of deferment. This form of flexibility could be of considerable social benefit, particularly for those who married late and have family responsibility. It would not add to the financial burden on the state. On the whole, therefore, I agree with the committee's recommendation as regards state pensions, although considerable flexibility will be needed as to its full implementation over time.
I now come to occupational pension schemes. Broadly speaking, I believe that interference from Brussels is highly undesirable apart from the general principle that they must not offend basic equal opportunities concepts. I very much agree that the directive is badly drawn up, lacks definitions and does not make it clear in many places whether it is talking about state or private pension schemes. At best some guidelines might be acceptable, but businesses must be able to frame pension schemes appropriate to their earnings and general terms of service.
I say "earnings" because during a period of high inflation which took place early in this decade, and particularly in the decade before, pension funds became completely insolvent. In fact, if your company was making adequate profit it could perhaps put the matter right. In one case concerning my particular bank we had to add 27·5 per cent. to the salary bill in order to keep the pension fund solvent. So from the point of view of business, the position is very much more complicated than one might think by sitting in Brussels.
Mr. Langham of Unilever pointed out that most companies have already modified their schemes to meet many of the points made in the directive. I saw hints in the evidence. He said that he took a rather relaxed attitude to the whole subject. In the case of Barclays Bank the same applies. For instance, the bank already grants widowers pensions and includes all those part-time workers who do more than 14 hours a week. The time factor on implementation that has been mentioned is another very important aspect. Mr. Langham said that the scheme will take

1587
three years to get ready, but many more years before full implementation.
As concerns having a retirement decade, difficulties will arise among the higher echelons because of the necessity to plan ahead for succession. For the more clerical grades in the bank, for instance, this concept is probably quite acceptable; but in the 1990s it is desirable for the demographic reasons that I have mentioned. As regards part-timers, I believe all those above a minimum income or number of hours worked should be included in the pension scheme. Experience in my own business so far shows that where the pension scheme is non-contributory staff will naturally join, but where it is contributory very few part-timers opt to join as they prefer money in hand. Inquiries having been made in the bank, it is extraordinary how few part-timers were interested at all in pensions. Many of them are also short-timers in terms of years and their pensions would be trivial.
To sum up, I believe that guidelines should be issued and they will be useful. Certainly, regulations as regards equal opportunities should be made. I am quite certain that there must be considerable flexibility in the implementation of all these matters. I support the Motion.
1.3 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am the first speaker in this debate who was not a Member of the committee. I congratulate it on preparing this very comprehensive report, but I am not sure that I should congratulate the Minister. I once had the task of having to answer questions concerning pensions. Therefore I wish him good luck in his office. It is not the office that one enjoys most of all.
I was recently at a women's conference at which a worthy civil servant attempted to explain why women could not receive certain pensions. He was practically howled down. I suggest that attempting to explain the logic of the pension system is not the most popular role because it has no logic. Anyone who has ever tried to work through how a pension is collected knows that the system has no logic.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that we must be very careful never to regard pensioners as a social problem. Quite recently a book was published which made reference to the grey generation. The book more or less implied that the grey generation will have a stranglehold on young people entering the pension scheme. The next provision to be introduced will be voluntary euthanasia and possibly compulsory euthanasia because pensioners are a charge on the state. We created that pensioner as a charge on the state because we have forced people to retire at a certain age simply because the retirement age was declared a long time ago.
I shall use my few minutes to sound my drum and say that we discriminate on the ground of age. This directive is a small move in the right direction although it has yet to be approved. A fixed state pensionage has very little relevance in today's pattern of retirement. When the retirement age was first introduced many years ago workers were played
1588
out at 60. They worked 12 hours a day and six days a week. They had very poor food and they certainly did not have modern medicines which have made spectacular advances. In all probability the workers were played out at 40 but they had to struggle on.
I have done a lot of work in connection with pre-retirement courses. At these courses there are many people who are absolutely fit, healthy, and mentally and physically right. We are saying to them that they have to retire. Many of them do not want to retire partly because they feel that they still have something to give. However, we force them to retire and then we say to them that they are a charge on the state. This state of affairs stems from a most curious idea the basis of which is that we base everything either on sex or on age. People are people. If an employer wishes to employ someone, he employs the best person to do the job if he has any sense.
When I introduced my Bill on age discrimination, I said that if gorillas can do the job better I suspect that we would employ gorillas. At least they would not answer back. There is no doubt that we have based the whole structure on the most complicated arrangements so that when people claim their pensions they find that they have to sort through a form to decide whether they are eligible for this, that, or something else. One day we shall produce a human being of the right sex, the right age, the right colour and at the right time in order to collect the maximum from the state, wherever he lives.
I support the idea of a flexible retirement system. It is a slight move in the right direction. There never was any real logic in women retiring at the age of 60 and men at 65. There is certainly no logic for a woman as a housewife or homemaker to claim through her husband, still on retirement pension, as a dependant. This particularly irritates women. The assumption is that because they have not worked in paid employment they have not worked. In fact they have made a great contribution to society and they merit a full pension. That is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the whole pension system.
I am delighted that many people of my generation, when looking around for a second mate—one is hopeful to any age, I suppose, and preferably one would wish for a younger mate because he or she will outlive you—sensibly do not marry because they can continue to claim separate retirement pensions whereas collectively they would get less. It is a totally ridiculous system which human beings usually find some way round. This directive is a start in the right direction for a flexible retirement system. I like the fact that the report states that the pension should be equal. I am not enamoured of the decade of retirement, but I suppose it is the only method by which this system can be brought into being. I imagine that employers will make a meal of it even if the Government do not.
All these systems cost a lot of money to operate. If there is not simplicity of administration there is need for a much larger staff. The great advantage of the child benefit system when it was first introduced was that it was paid to everybody who had children. I can remember the arguments against that—that some rich people would get it—but I pointed out

1589
then as I have pointed out many times that there is no danger of anyone getting too much money out of the state. It is all tied up. There is even the rule that one cannot get two state benefits. This was raised in connection with widows who happened to want to collect the maternity allowance. Although they were mothers as well as widows they could have only one benefit. The state has it all tied up. Simplicity of payment is the first rule for any sensible arrangement. It is unbelievable how complicated it has become. I often think that Lord Beveridge must turn in his grave. His was a simple concept which has been made unduly complicated.
The report goes on to say that demographic and other factors make it desirable to give people further encouragement to remain in employment. That is splendid. I could not endorse any statement more, but that must not be allowed to cloud the idea. We still have to look at age discrimination, because that can change. When there is a war, suddenly the poor weak women who are supposedly incapable of physical labour can drive lorries because there are no men to do it. The same applies to the question of age. If there is a shortage of young people, one has to have the older ones. As I have said before, suddenly the dear old 50s are the best thing since sliced bread. Long may that continue, but we do not know that it will continue. How can we forecast how many people are going to be born? We do not know. We are not even sure how many people are going to die, so we certainly cannot work out how many people are going to be born. So the demography can change, and we must have all this in legislation.
Age must never be used any more than sex or race as a reason for doing or not doing something. Human beings are people with all their own feelings, dignities and capabilities. That is how they should be considered. It sounds so simple but we have made it complicated.
There is the interesting matter of the new Ministers. The Prime Minister is creeping towards that terrible age when she should be forced to retire, but of course Prime Ministers never retire; they make everybody else retire. What were the qualities of the new Ministers according to the newspapers? It was not that they are highly intelligent, not that they are going to be capable of doing the job, but that they are young and bring in a breath of fresh air. I have encountered breaths of fresh air. I recall a certain council from which somebody was asked to resign because he was too old and fresh blood was needed. The fresh blood turned out to be a man five years older! That could be a way of bringing in fresh blood, but it is all nonsense.
If we are to move into the next century with common sense, do not let us take three years on a matter such as this and then produce nothing. People are people and that is how they should always be considered, whether we are talking about employment, retirement, or our general contribution to the community.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Allen and
1590
Lord Henley, who sit confident to reply to not the easiest debate in the world.
Miss Joan Brown, giving evidence to the committee, concluded her comments by saying:
"The goals are worth pursuing with vigour, but now that we have reached a most difficult part of the path to equal treatment we should proceed with the greatest caution lest the cure be worse than the disease".
The committee is clear in its mind that the objective of equal pension age for men and women should be pursued in this country. Of course a substantial difference in life expectancy is long-standing and universal. In recent years some changes have occurred because of medical improvements, elimination of infectious diseases and matters of that kind which affect both sexes. Smoking raises an interesting situation because in personal pensions the companies have had no difficulty in introducing special rates for smokers and ignoring the sex differential. It is obvious that no person taking out a private policy would be prepared to pay to subsidise men or women who were smokers.
Other geographical and occupational variations exist, but the most important factor is that it is not often clear what the real causes of differentials are, and often insurance companies do no: know what factors to rate for. Neither do the policy holders know how their prospects compare with the general average. There are exceptions. I have mentioned smoking; another exception is the risk of accident.
It has been said that unequal pension ages create a variety of anomalies, some of which disadvantage men and some of which disadvantage women. From the point of view of the acquisition of an adequate income for retirement, women's lower retirement age gives disadvantages under the present United Kingdom system which is based on a flat rate national insurance penion plus a second pension from SERPS or an occupational scheme, or a personal pension. But because the national insurance pension is so low it is the second pension which can free the elderly from the need to claim means-tested benefit in retirement to cover basic needs. Its level will depend on the number of years of contribution and on the wage on which it is based.
Raising women's age to 65 for the national insurance pension has been seen as politically difficult. Not all women would welcome that. There is a clear trend towards earlier retirement for men, but equalisation by lowering men's pension age to 60 is seen as far too costly. Both the Equal Opportunities Commission and the House of Commons Social Services Committee have suggested a compromise age of 63, with transitional provisions for those coming up to the present pension age and who have planned their retirement accordingly. The Government have seen this as too costly and point out that the only possible nil cost change would be to equalise at 64½ years. The Government offered an alternative in 1985 but that produced more problems than it solved. The suggestion was for more flexible retirement through a retirement decade.
Not only are there complications of the kind that one has referred to but there are further complications in relation to Europe in the differences existing between various countries.

1591
There are five member states where pension ages are not the same and where there will be a huge financial problem in trying to align them. The Government Actuary has clearly stated that unisex rates and conditions can be offered only by giving up other advantages in personal pensions. The loss is freedom of choice. Another loss is that some minority groups, particularly single men, do rather badly out of the deal.
One comes to personal rather than derived rights. If we are to move from derived to personal rights, before the move has begun it is essential to address the factors which still prevent women, in particular married women, from acquiring personal rights. Of those, the two most important are low paid part-time work and the income support roles. Women who work for wages below the lower limit of national insurance contributions do not acquire rights to national insurance even if they work regularly for a number of years. Wages at this level clearly cannot tolerate even the lowest rate of national insurance deductions of 5 per cent.
On the other hand, while neither the employee nor the employer are making contributions to the National Insurance Fund, it is difficult to propose that, in spite of this, benefits should be paid. It may be necessary to consider the introduction of a very low contribution rate, perhaps 1 per cent., for very low earners in order to give them a place in the national insurance scheme and the rights to benefit even at a reduced rate.
It seems likely that at some stage women will wish to extend their hours and increase their wages and therefore their contribution liability. They could then have full rates for work absence and build on the contribution years so that they acquire pension rights. Some means need to be found to overcome the exclusion of these women from the opportunity of building up future rights; and, indeed, the same applies to any man in the same position.
1.21 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, speaking as I do almost at the end of the debate, I can probably dispense with some of the remarks I intended to make. However, I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister on his promotion and paying tribute to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. He took much flack from this side of the House and no doubt the new Minister will take just as much—hopefully. We try to be constructive and we know that he will try to be helpful, but I congratulate him all the same.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord who introduced the debate and who also steered the matter through the committee. I pay tribute to all the committee members and to all the people who gave evidence. The committee has done a tremendous job in producing a report which is as comprehensive and constructive as this one.
I must say that I am a little saddened at the timing of the debate, coming, as it does, right at the very end of the Session; indeed, the last day before the Summer Recess. It comes before us following a
1592
welter of Bills and everyone is punch drunk after having discussed, read and considered those matters. Therefore, it has been a most difficult task for us. I must confess that I have not finished my detailed study of this report for those reasons. We need more time and this is not the best time for such a debate. It would have been much better had it been tabled during prime time in the Session because it is a matter of great importance.
As I said, I think that the Committee did a great job in bringing together so many views, many of which were critical but most of which were constructive. That is another aspect which stands out from the debate: although members of the committee made some criticisms, they also added something constructive and at least tried to put on record something of their experience. Indeed, most of them have a record of years and years of experience in such matters. The result has been the production of the report which we have before us.
The report is a very comprehensive review of the current attitudes to many of the questions raised in the draft directive. The noble Lord who opened the debate summarised the provisions of that directive and, for me at any rate, made it much more readily understandable in view of the fact that I have not been able to study the document as deeply as I should have liked.
I happen to have been involved for many years one way or another with the provision of pensions, the retirement age, the adequacy of the pension, the discrimination against men and many other aspects as regards retirement. For the past 15 to 20 years I have been closely connected with Age Concern and its work in this field. I supported the evidence given by Age Concern to the committee, which naturally I read at an early stage.
Having said that, I welcome the draft for all the reasons which have been stated by previous speakers. However, I must say that I am not opposed to the necessary legislation—social security Bills and so on—being handled by the Government of the United Kingdom. But I am a little worried that this may follow the usual procedure; in other words, there is a danger so far as I am concerned that if this Government, or any other UK government, follow the pattern of the last 10 years, they will say, "We will deal with this on a nil-cost basis". That is the big danger. If there is an attempt to deal with the matter on a nil-cost basis, it will make an already grim situation in many fields of social service in this country even worse. Therefore we must guard against that possibility.
I support the cautionary note entered by Mr. Jacques. He was one of the TUC witnesses. His evidence is reported on page 71 of the report and I thought that what he said was also apposite:
"past experience has shown us that they"—
that is, the Government—
"are very reluctant to take steps in this direction. Thus far, much of UK equality law has come about due to events in the European Parliament and the European Court. It appears far more likely at this stage, therefore, that any positive action will emanate from the European Commission, as it has in the past".
I think that he was wise to enter that precautionary note, because nothing here of any real moment has

1593
really happened, unless it has been forced upon us by a directive from Europe; for example, a court case which has gone against the Government, whereupon things have changed. Indeed, as regards legislation just passed, a great chunk of that was a direct result of a European Court case and European directives. Therefore I agree with Mr. Jacques from the TUC. With his views I include my own precautionary note as regards nil-cost arrangements.
I have also been closely concerned with many organisations which are worried about the position of carers. I think that that aspect comes out in many of the comments made by witnesses. This is a particular concern which we all have for family carers who are looking after elderly parents. A recent OPCS survey reported on informal carers. It found that nearly two-thirds of those who devote a significant amount of time to caring for others are women. That of course is a fact already known to us and the figure is probably more than two-thirds by now. Nevertheless, it is a huge percentage. That is likely to reduce, or completely shut out, their opportunity to work and earn money and thereby to qualify for the various benefits.
A caring situation should be covered by a general statement in Article 2. It is not covered specifically enough for most of us. It should be covered and it should be reaffirmed in other articles where appropriate. That factor should be borne in mind whenever we discuss any of these directives. For example, it has been suggested that member states may look to equalise pension receipt on the basis of contribution years, which must be identical for both sexes. That should be accompanied by a clause which requires protection for years spent bringing up children or caring for chronically sick or disabled dependants. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, touched upon that aspect of the matter. Moreover, similar provisions should be included in other clauses in the directive.
As I said, in the past I supported many campaigns. This is not a new issue. I am reminded of the Philips Report.
Baroness Phillips: That is nothing to do with me!
Lord Stallard: It is nothing to do with my noble friend, thank goodness otherwise I should have to scrap my quote. However, that committee was set up 30 years ago. It produced a report which contained some ominous warnings about the growing burden of caring for the elderly. But that comment could have been made 30 days ago because the same kind of findings emerge from bureaucrats who are now involved in such situations. The majority of members of the committee proposed that the pension age for men should be ultimately raised to 68 years of age and for women to 63 years.
In those days, I was actively campaigning for a reduction in the men's retirement to the age of 60. I have not budged on that issue; but I hope that not many people are following the recommendations of the Philips Report. I am still in the same position as I was all those years ago. I support the campaigns and I support the proposition that the retirement age should be equalised to 60 years.
1594
Following the comments made so far in this debate, I think it can be said that there are a number of new circumstances to be considered. For example, the increase in occupational pension schemes, with the many different age qualifications; the early retirement schemes; the early redundancy schemes; the increased unemployment; the increased part-time working; and the abolition of the earnings rule. The latter is a brand new factor and has never been discussed in any report. However, it certainly merits a little discussion in this instance.
A number of other countries have moved in the direction of flexibility. We face a completely different set of circumstances, which means that we should not wait for years to make the decisions but should make them fairly soon. The point was wrapped up neatly by Age Concern, which said:
"Age Concern would like to see the introduction of a flexible retirement system, creating for example a wide band between 60 and 70, with entitlement of the state pension at age 60 for men and women, and with legislative safeguards precluding the dismissal of employees on grounds of age up to the higher end of the scale. We also see a need for the introduction and encouragement of schemes for gradual retirement, and for investigation into the possibility of half-work, half-pension schemes for people wishing to opt for part-time employment before retirement without loss of income".
That is a perfectly constructive proposition and proposal which could be included in any submissions we make on this draft directive.
Whenever we have mentioned this issue before we have been told of the colossal cost that would be involved. I first raised the matter almost in my first month as a Member of the other place and I was told about the colossal cost. It was estimated to be millions of pounds in those days. Now the cost would be billions of pounds. If it had been accepted then it would not be so expensive now. There will always be a cost. That is recognised by everyone. A great deal of work has been done on this issue by the Campaign for Equal State Pension Ages. It also produced a report which is well worth reading.
It estimates the first year costs as £3.4 billion. That is not a great deal of money for the end product when compared with other expenditure. It can be argued that the actual costs will be lower as not all men aged over 60 would draw a pension and cease to work. Many would carry on working if 60 was the age at which they could draw the pension. Many more will be entitled to do it because of the abolition of the earnings rule. I say that the estimate is excessive because these new factors were not taken into account.
If this report receives the publicity which it thoroughly deserves, the whole question will be opened up for public debate. I for one look forward to further participation in that debate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put one question to him. He favours a common retirement age of 60. Let us suppose that the average life expectancy for both men and women increases by five years over the next 50 years, which on past patterns may be something of an underestimate. Would he still then be in favour of the retirement age being as low as 60?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I might not be here then. One would have to look at the new circumstances. I have not based my view on equality of age on the premise of the noble Lord. I am not basing it on the fact that there will be a shorter or longer life expectancy. It is a question of justice. It was never based on that to begin with. I am basing it on justice in the present circumstances. Given a completely new set of circumstances, I would not be totally inflexible. In fact I have stressed that I am for flexibility in this issue as in many others.
1.34 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on his promotion to this present position. With the agreeable inconsistency of your Lordships' House, we wish him the very best of luck and we intend to give him a very bad time. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on the brilliant lucidity with which he explained this report. On the face of it, it looks a relatively simple matter but it is simple only to those who have not tried to understand it. It is full of complex and difficult issues which will have to be thought through and worked out very carefully indeed if we are to achieve the results which we all want to achieve.
I should like to start by taking up one or two of the omissions in the draft directive. I start with the omission of adequate references to part-time work. In the past part-time work has been seen as a collection of low-paid ghetto jobs for women whom it is hoped will not be there very long. Part-time work is completely changing its character. It is important that our social security system should recognise the way in which part-time work is changing in character and the way in which it is highly desirable that it should. If we are to believe the obvious evidence of trends and the writings of some of the best informed people, the labour market of the future will require that a great many people, both men and women, at a variety of levels, not merely at the level of an unskilled job (which was previously the area in which part-time work was undertaken) will take on part-time work. This will have economic and certain social benefits.
Part-time work will not be acceptable unless it is seen to be on all fours with full-time work pro rata for time spent. That means that all the benefits which go with full-time work should be available to people in part-time work. It is a pity that this draft directive has not come to grips with the implications of the changing nature of part-time work, the people who are going to do it and the desirability in the labour market that it should be established as a desirable form of employment with all the advantages attached of the jobs which previously could be done only on a full-time basis.
I should like also to take up the issue of the failure to include an adequate definition of indirect discrimination. In this country—I have never explored the matter elsewhere—I find that after 14 years there is still an extraordinary misunderstanding about the nature of indirect discrimination. Most people think that it is a
1596
particularly devious and underhand form of discrimination. On the contrary, it is a discrimination in which a great many people indulge but without knowing that they are doing it. That makes it far more dangerous and far more difficult to deal with. On the whole, in this country, and for all I know, also in the other countries of the Community, straight, direct, really open, blatant discrimination occurs very rarely. It has to a large extent been eliminated. But indirect discrimination is rampant. Unless we recognise it and get a good definition applicable throughout the Community, attempts to halt discrimination will not go far. I hope that in discussing this draft directive the Government will make the point that this is much the most important aspect of discrimination and that we need to understand exactly what it means and how we are to interpret it.
That said there are in this draft directive a number of issues which one welcomes. I much welcome the individualisation of benefits. This is one of the areas as regards which the objective is easy to welcome, but one must at the same time accept the complexity and difficulty of moving to its full implementation. What is behind this is a fundamental social change. It is true that not only here but in most other countries the man has for centuries been the head of the household and the breadwinner. That is changing. It is no longer the case for a whole variety of reasons into which I shall not go today and of which I think most people are fully aware.
This is a huge change. The dependence of the woman on her husband for maintenance and provision for old age is passing. The divorce rate is one element of the situation but it is only one of a number of reasons why this is happening. Therefore we need to move towards the individualisation of benefits, the ability for individual women—married, single, divorced or whatever their marital status may be—to build up their own rights and to be able to be certain that they have financial resources, whatever changes may take place in their marital status.
We are moving slowly in that direction. We need to explore fully and in depth what all the problems are and how we can best cope with them. That is something which I should have thought could be done with great advantage in collaboration with our partners in Europe, to see how this can be worked out in the best possible way. As regards application throughout the Community, the fact that we start from somewhat different bases does not make it any easier.
Secondly, like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and other speakers—but I think that she was the most emphatic—I greatly welcome the suggestion of flexible retirement ages. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for the life of me I cannot see why we should encourage people to retire at the age of 60. The demographic figures speak for themselves, with the great increase in the number of people in the older age groups. I suppose that most of us—but certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Henley—have a bias towards old age in your Lordships' House. I do not think that that blinds us to the facts of the situation which are that today a great many people

1597
can and like to carry on working. They do not wish to be discriminated against on grounds of age. Some people want to retire earlier for a whole variety of reasons, not least because in many jobs a retirement from full-time employment is particularly attractive if people have a number of other interests or money-earning activities which they can develop if they retire early. But if they leave it till the formal retirement age, it is too late for them to take up those activities.
This is a highly desirable way of handling retirement. I suppose what most of us wanted when we neared retirement and what most of us in your Lordships' House have been fortunate enough to have is gradual retirement (It does not seem to be very gradual as regards your Lordships' House.) By that I do not mean carrying on working full time; I mean carrying on being usefully, and preferably profitably employed—which does not always apply in your Lordships' House—after formal retirement has taken place. That is what I see as the pattern for the future.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I think that she misquoted me, or I hope so. I certainly did not think that people should retire at 60. I am in favour of a flexibility in retirement, but the pivotal age should be 60. The basic pension should be payable at 60. There should be an adequate pension at 60 for those who need it or require it or who must retire. But for the rest of us I agree entirely with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am glad to have that explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and I apologise if I misunderstood him. However, I disagree with him in that full retirement pensions for everybody at 60 at what would be an acceptable and adequate pension would be pretty costly. I believe that the retirement pensions, like retirement age, should be graduated. Personally—and this is purely a personal view—I would drop the flexibility to a point lower than 60. For quite a lot of people, I believe that a small pension at 55, with the opportunity to earn money in other ways, might be very acceptable. If people go on working for a much longer period, their pensions should be correspondingly enhanced.
However, flexibility is undoubtedly the key and it is a very good thing indeed that this is proposed. Personally I go along with the suggestion that the pivotal age for what we regard as a full pension should be 63, but that is a matter for discussion. We need to look at the figures very carefully indeed before we finally decide what is exactly the right age and exactly the right amount of money that can be guaranteed at different stages.
I should like to stress only one other point. We in this country—I think with some justice—have been seen by at any rate some of our partners in the Community as dragging our feet in the face of suggestions coming from the Community. We are seen as resisting changes, making it difficult, particularly in the field of equal opportunities, where our development and changes in equal opportunities
1598
have come all too often only because we have been taken to the European Court. We have then been forced to make changes. It would have been very much more satisfactory if we had made: them before. The delay has not been for any want of pressure put on the Government by many speakers on this side of the House and indeed from some on the Government Back Benches.
Given that 1992 is just around the corner—despite the resistance in high quarters to the acceptance of some of the social policies coming from Brussels—would not the following be highly desirable? Instead of the Government waiting for directives to come from Europe and then fighting, inch by inch, against the proposed changes, the Government themselves should think about ways in which these issues could be advanced, taking the initiative in Brussels. In that way some of the directives would come as a result of the previous thinking and input from this country. We should be seer as taking an active role in promoting equal opportunities rather than taking a role in which we fight against them and then reluctantly have to agree to conform.
I have now spoken for 12 minutes. I very much hope that the Government will accept the major recommendations and will take initiatives on the omissions to which your Lordships have drawn attention.
1.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, at the risk of sounding repetitive may I also from these Benches welcome the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his new post. We wish to say, as others have said this morning, how much we on these Benches appreciated the unfailing courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, dealt with the often critical and hostile comments on social security from this side of the House.
I welcome the report of the Select Committee. I myself was a member, along with my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who has already spoken in the debate, and other Members of your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank cur chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the comprehensive way in which he has dealt with a detailed and to some degree difficult report.
I commend the report, not only because of its conclusions, which I hope the House will find entirely acceptable, but because of the nature of the report itself, which brings together a large amount of evidence on what is admittedly a tricky and difficult subject. Of course it ought not to be a tricky and difficult subject because nowadays everybody is in favour of equal treatment of men and women and opposes sex discrimination. It is difficult and tricky because of what we have inherited from the past when there was a very different perception of work patterns and family life.
The Committee has had to have regard, in compiling the report, to the expectations that already exist. Some of them are based on past experience. In particular, we must be careful in endeavouring to secure formal equality that we do not end up actually worsening conditions for the vulnerable people

1599
whom we wish to help. Nevertheless, I welcome the draft directive which I regard—as did the committee—as evidence of the European Commission's continuing commitment to the elimination of sex discrimination throughout the Community. There are some particular problems for us in the UK, largely arising from the way in which we have traditionally made provision. In my view these are dealt with very well in the report.
Probably the most difficult issue facing us is the equalisation of state pension ages. No one wants to continue with a system in which women may retire on full state pension five years earlier than men. The ages in the state system were set many years ago when family patterns and expectations were entirely different. Far fewer women went to work outside the home, except of course during the exceptional conditions of wartime. It was quite normal for female employment to cease upon marriage.
The five-year difference was originally thought of because in general men married women five years younger than themselves and it was felt that in this way married people would qualify for retirement pensions together. However, as we all know—this has been referred to many times in the debate—things have changed. One in three marriages now ends in divorce. Most women expect to continue in employment outside the home after marriage, returning to work after a break for child care. This is now officially encouraged, as we have seen from the Government's White Paper Employment in the 1990s. The earlier retirement age is by no means an unalloyed blessing for women. However, it is true, judging from the report, that some of the organisations seen by the committee believe it to be so.
The Marshall judgment, when a woman succeeded before the European Court in establishing that she had the right to continue in employment until age 65 if a man had that right in the same employment, led to some rethinking about pension provision. Some women, particularly those in interesting and satisfying work, wanted to emulate Miss Marshall and stay on after age 60. They also wanted the opportunity to earn more pension to cover those extra years, although that was not provided for in the legislation introduced in the wake of the Marshall judgment. At the same time, some pension schemes introduced a common retirement age of 60 for both sexes. In order to make this acceptable to male employees who would have to wait until age 65 for a full state pension, such schemes introduced bridging pensions for men until age 65. This, as we know, has been held to be contrary to the directive. Indeed, during the debate on the recent social security legislation in this House, amendments to try to protect bridging pensions were opposed by the Government on the grounds that the directive would render them illegal.
It will be seen from the report that the committee regards it as anomalous that by seeking to offset inequality between the sexes in the state scheme, occupational schemes should themselves be made vulnerable to the charge of unequal treatment. The committee recommends that such schemes should
1600
be allowed to pay bridging pensions until the pension ages of men and women are equalised in the state scheme, and that the directive should be amended to include the necessary transitional provisions. Surely this is sensible, and surely this is something which the Government should take on board.
The problem is of course the failure to introduce equal ages in the state pension scheme a great deal earlier. The Occupational Pensions Board recommended equalisation as long ago as 1976, identifying this as one of the main causes of inequality in pension provision. While everyone now appears to be in favour of doing something, there has not been agreement on the methods to be adopted. The TUC and EOC wanted to equalise at age 60, as will be seen from the report, although both accept that there will be substantial costs involved. However, others have drawn attention to demographic considerations. In today's debate we have heard a great deal about that, notably from my noble friend Lady Phillips.
It now appears that while a few years ago older workers were being persuaded to take early retirement, often when they really did not want to do so, it is now being discovered that their skills are needed. Lowering the male retirement are to 60 is felt by some to run counter to the present trend, which is to retain those with skills in the workforce.
The committee's report is absolutely clear, and commendably so in my opinion. The Government must grasp the nettle. Pension ages must be equalised. The committee favours the idea of a decade of retirement, between the ages of 60 and 70, when men and women may choose when they want to retire. In such a system there has of course to be a pivotal age at which the full state pension would become payable. The committee believes this should be 63, and sets out its reasons for this belief. Clearly this is a compromise between the various submissions that were made, but it represents a way forward which I hope will commend itself to the House and upon which I hope the Government will act. It is accepted that this will cost money—around £700 million in a full year—and of course there must be protection for those whose expectation is different. Transitional arrangements must be made. Those are also referred to in the report.
Another particularly difficult area for the UK is the matter of derived benefits. This is also dealt with in the paragraph of the report dealing with the individualisation of benefits. Clearly in a situation of marriage breakdown, derived benefits are vulnerable. However, derived benefits are a common feature of provision in the UK. As is pointed out in the report, one effect of the operation of the directive would be the abolition of the married woman's pension payable on the husband's contributions. Provision for women in this category would have to be made until well into the next century—that is, transitional provision.
Clearly the committee is right to say that the whole matter of derived benefits must be re-examined by the European Commission. There is evidence that in Denmark, for example—this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—where there has been a switch away

1601
from derived benefits, considerable hardship has resulted with large firms now making ad hoc provision to overcome this hardship.
As regards family benefits, I am sure that everyone in this House will welcome the view of the committee that child benefit should continue to be paid to the mother. Everyone making representations on this subject felt the same way although the EOC could, it is true, see some difficulty in that. It suggested that it might be paid to the parent with the care of the child.
I particularly welcome the committee's comments about part-timers. This is a growth area of employment. That is more the cause in the UK than anywhere else in the Community. Part-time employees are mostly women. For obvious reasons many find it easier to combine work outside the home with domestic responsibilities. The committee found that many employers were uncertain about their obligations to part-timers, and in particular whether or not they should be included in pension schemes. Many of the better schemes now offer membership to part-timers, usually at reduced rates. This is surely a development to be welcomed, as is the committee's recommendation that Draft Article 2(a) should be expanded to include part-time workers.
Despite the difficulties, the committee recommends that survivor's benefits, if paid, should ultimately be made available to men and women on equal terms. This is surely right, given the changing family circumstances to which reference has been made by most speakers in this debate. If, as the report says, it becomes the norm for couples to be dependent on the earnings of both partners for most of their lives, then equal survivor's benefits make sense.
Finally, I wish to say how much I agree with what has been said in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the issue of indirect discrimination. Clearly there has to be some definition which is acceptable throughout the Community as to what constitutes indirect discrimination. I agree absolutely that that is the kind of discrimination that takes place without people realising that they are indulging in it. It would be helpful to everyone, and would certainly assist very much the cause of equality throughout the Community, if there were to be further work on this matter and if eventually a definition were drawn up that was acceptable throughout the Community.
I commend the report to your Lordships' House. It is clearly the product of much careful thought and follows consideration of representations made by a wider range of organisations and individuals. In particular, I wish to emphasise again the importance of equalising pension state ages as that is the root cause of many of our past difficulties and anomalies. I now think the time has come for the Government to take action to end this outdated provision.
2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord
1602
Allen, and other noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their very kind words directed both towards myself on starting in this post, and towards my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who has left this office. I hope I shall be able to follow in his footsteps. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and congratulate him and his committee on producing this report.
Noble Lords alleged considerable lack of interest in the press with regard to the Select Committee's reports on European legislation. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government take them very seriously. The committee's report will play a major part in helping us to Formulate our approach to these issues.
Like the committee, I consider that the central issues covered by this draft directive are of significant importance to our social security system. This third directive builds on the two earlier ones—Directive 79/7 covering state social security systems and Directive 86/378 covering occupational schemes. Each of those earlier directives allowed for specific exceptions from the application of equal treatment between men and women.
The draft third directive seeks to end all those various exclusions and "complete" the process of equal treatment for men and women in both state social security systems and occupational schemes. It is thus of special significance, since its effects could have a direct impact on every man, woman and child in this country.
However, a word or two of caution may be helpful lest we rush headlong into trying to complete the process of equal treatment in social security. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the committee in voicing their strong reservations about a number of aspects in the draft directive. Total equality implanted into social security systems in advance of similar equality in social and economic patterns can be mischievous and damaging.
I should like to illustrate this point with a straightforward example which will be familiar to your Lordships. The draft of the directive which the committee considered would have required that the principle of equal treatment should be applied to the payment of child benefit. However desirable the principle of equality may be, there is a strong tradition in this country, which has been reaffirmed by both Houses of Parliament, that child benefit should in the first instance be paid to the mother. There are provisions which enable the mother and father to agree jointly that the benefit may be paid to the father, but that is a second stage extension of choice.
The Government have consistently opposed this rote application of the principles of equal treatment to the payability of child benefit. It is with considerable gratification that I noted that the committee has agreed with that position in its conclusion in paragraph 115 of the report. I can assure the House that the Government would have had no intention whatsoever of giving agreement to any piece of Community legislation which did not preserve the continuing payment of child benefit to the mother.

1603
I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships that subsequent negotiations have produced a change on this issue. The United Kingdom and the majority of member states insisted on the change. As a result, the latest draft text now permits each member state to decide on matters of payability of child benefit, providing the conditions for eligibility conform to the principles of equal treatment.
Perhaps I should add at this stage that, while the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and his European Communities Committee were considering this draft directive, the outgoing Spanish Presidency instituted a flurry of continued negotiations. These resulted in a number of redrafted versions of the text. However, these negotiations were by no means sufficient to enable member states to give unanimous agreement to the directive. Consequently, while it was an item on the agenda for the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg last month, the issue was referred back for continuing discussions under the new French Presidency.
This draft directive has as its aim the completion of the process of equal treatment in social security and thus touches on matters of considerable significance and importance. Later in the year the Government will be responding in detail to all the points raised in the House. As I have said, I can assure your Lordships that, in the current deliberations on the directive, the Committee's report will play a major part in helping the Government to formulate our approach to the issues.
The Government's overall view can be summarised quite simply. Because this draft covers issues of fundamental importance, we do not wish to be rushed into judgment. We do not desire to conclude negotiations until we are completely satisfied with the legal soundness of the provisions. We must be as sure as we can be that the judgments of the European Court between the adoption of a directive and the date for its implementation will not radically transform the requirements placed upon us from our initial understandings. We do not accept that the time is ripe for all the issues under discussion to be finalised.
Two major issues are covered by this directive. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned a third: child benefit, about which I have already spoken. I shall therefore concentrate on the issues of the equalisation of survivors' benefits and the equalisation of pension age, which were touched upon by every speaker.
In the conclusion in paragraph 114 the Committee consider that: "Eventually, men and women should have to be provided with survivors' benefits on the same terms, but Member States should be allowed at least 15 years to achieve this provision".
As the House will be well aware, the 1986 Directive 86/378, on equal treatment in occupational schemes, followed its 1979 state scheme predecessor in specifically incorporating a derogation in respect of survivors' benefits. That is why the equal treatment requirements in Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act which received Royal Assent last week similarly did not extend to survivors' benefits.
1604
That is not to say that we consider provision of widowers' pensions in occupational schemes as a matter of low priority. The 1986 Social Security Act made it a condition for an occupational pension scheme to be used for contracting out of the State Earnings Related Scheme (SERPS) that it should provide a widowers' pension at a guaranteed minimum on the same basis as required for widows. The new contracted-out money purchase schemes and appropriate personal pension schemes are also each required to provide widowers' pensions.
This year's Act, although taking account of the derogation in the 1986 directive, made certain specific reforms in respect of widowers' pensions. Occupational schemes will, from 1st October this year, for the first time be under a statutory obligation to preserve and revalue the rights of widowers' pensions accruing to women who leave an employment. Equally, women who leave their pension scheme before the scheme's normal pension age may, from 1st October, choose to commute part of their pension to provide for their widower.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, among other noble Lords, mentioned the issue of bridging pensions and the Select Committee's recommendation in paragraph 19 that the directive should be amended to allow occcupational schemes to pay bridging pensions to men to compensate for the lack of state pension during any period when women of the same age were entitled to state pension. Transitional pension provision would no longer be applicable once the state pensionable ages of men and women had been equalised.
The House will recall that we had a full debate on the issue when we discussed the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone at both Committee and Report stages of the Social Security Bill. I can assure the House that we shall be writing very soon to the Commission to seek clarification of Directive 86/378, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale announced during our debate at the Report stage of the Bill. My noble friend also undertook to consider whether, should the opportunity arise, we must negotiate an amendment to the draft directive to permit bridging pensions to continue. Like my noble friend, I cannot hold out much hope of success.
Turning from the provisions in occupational and private schemes to the question of the provision for widowers' pensions within the state social security scheme, I have to say that the Government have serious reservations as to whether the provision of survivors' benefits for men within the state scheme equivalent to those existing for women could sensibly be justified. Such benefits would be expensive, costing at the moment some £200 million a year.
I need not remind the House that the Government have undertaken a programme to restructure the social security system to provide better targeting of benefits towards those who need them most. The provision of a universal insurance benefit for widowers on a par with those provided for widows would represent poor targeting. The available evidence indicates that widowers are more likely to be in full-time work than widows and to have higher earnings than widows and are less likely to have

1605
dependent children. The Government consider that it would be poor value for money to introduce a universal insurance benefit for widowers. Consequently, however persuasive the theoretical arguments may be for equal treatment for men and women following the death of their spouse, the practicalities of the situation would seem to rule that out for the foreseeable future.
The Select Committee has recognised the problems and argued that member states should have at least 15 years to bring about equality. The Government do not think it right to agree to a proposal where it is doubtful whether there will be a justifiable practical case (as against a theoretical case) for change within two decades. As a consequence, the Government have made it clear to the Commission that, having reflected on the issue, we consider that equalisation of survivors' benefits within the state social security system should be entirely removed from the directive. That is not to say that we shall not continue to reflect on the position and keep it under review. But we do not want to be forced by a directive into something that we may decide against.
It follows that the Government consider that the Third Directive is too ambitious and not suited to the times. It should thus be retitled so that it seeks to "continue the process of equalisation" rather than "complete" it. In that, we are in full agreement with the committee's conclusion in paragraph 121.
That brings me to the second major issue, which was mentioned by every noble Lord who spoke; namely, the equalisation of pension age. In paragraph 116, the committee has made a series of bold recommendations.
The question of equalising state pension age has been a live issue for a considerable number of years in this country. The case for an equal pension age is well recognised, but there are major issues to be considered, notably the direction of change and the practicalities involved in moving to a changed and equalised position. The Government have highlighted that issue on a number of occasions, most recently in the 1985 White Paper on the Reform of Social Security.
The committee has favoured a decade of retirement with full pension becoming payable at age 63 for both men and women, while recognising that women at present aged 50 or more would need to have their position protected. While equalising at the age of 60 would undeniably place very considerable additional burdens on the working population, equalising at the age of 63 would add substantial extra costs to the large sums already spent on state pensions. In addition, a decade of retirement might also add significant complication to pension arrangements. To date, no satisfactory solutions have been found to those problems.
Moreover, as the pattern of economic activity in the country develops and as the demographic trends into the next century emerge, so the relative and absolute costs of options for change are likely to alter. A further factor is the aspirations, expectations and plans made for retirement of the working population, especially those approaching retirement.
1606
As a consequence, the Government consider that further estimates of costs and consequences, based on the latest information and projections, should be made to provide a benchmark for public discussion. Revised financial costings are therefore currently being undertaken with that end in view. Once they have been completed, they should provide a surer basis for appraisal of options.
I am in no doubt that we would all agree that any decision on equalisation of pension ages or the creation of a decade of retirement would need to be based on the best and most up-to-date estimates of costs and effects. Any change in pension age could have an effect on millions of people, of whom many will already be approaching retirement and will have made plans appropriate to their circumstances. Not only must reasonable expectations be respected, but time needs to be allowed to enable people to respond to changed needs and to enable occupational schemes to make adjustments in good time. Until an informed decision can be made, and has been the subject of debate, it would not be responsible to reach conclusions as to likely outcomes.
Those member states which do not already have equal pension ages for men and women jointly face problems of when and how to equalise. Further negotiations will undoubtedly help to clarify the outcome of these problems and the timescale for change. Given the need to protect the aspirations and expectations of those currently approaching retirement, it is hard to envisage any actual change in state pension age for those retiring in this century.
The draft directive and the committee's report touch on other significant issues and I should like to bring the House up to date on some more recent developments and, in so doing, respond also to some of the points which have been made in our debate. First, I can tell your Lordships that we have apparently been successful in a number of important respects. For example, in the latest working text, the period required for legislation in Article 14 has been increased from three to six years. We regard this as important so that any necessary legislation is not rushed but can be introduced with full consideration and consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Seear, spoke of derived entitlements and individualisation of benefits. Again, I can assure the House that in the latest working text of the directive reference to derived entitlements has been omitted altogether. In its report the committee concluded that, providing that derived rights were not withdrawn altogether, there was no objection to reference to them being progressively replaced by individualised entitlements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised the question of the application of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Kaufhaus v. Karin Weber von Hartz. The full effect of that judgment is by no means clear. The question of whether Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome applies to occupational scheme benefits is at issue in two cases that are currently before the European Court

1607
of Justice. One is the case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange and the other is Clarke v. Cray Precision Engineering.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised the issue of calculating pensions on sex-based actuarial considerations. It seems fairly clear that actuarial considerations of differences between the sexes are a legitimate factor for any insurance type of transaction. There is an empirical difference between the life expectancy of men and of women at specific ages, as is clearly indicated by the table supplied by the Government Actuary and shown on page 89.
However, it is also clear that there are other factors which could be introduced—for example, whether or not the individual is a smoker. Equally it would be a simple matter to eliminate actuarial differences providing that the will to do so was there and that the resulting disadvantage to men was accepted by all.
The experience of the state of Montana, which I believe the Select Committee studied, as well as the other illustrations cited by the Government Actuary, indicate that the general effect of operating unisex calculations is that the rate for women is applied universally. It remains an open question whether or not that is desirable or necessary.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Seear, argued that part-time workers should be brought within the scope of this directive. The Select Committee concluded the same. Article 2(a) specifies the groups in the working population who would be covered by the directive. The pattern of part-time work varies widely between various member states. Given that it did not prove possible for member states to reach agreement in 1982 on this issue, I have to say that it would seem most likely that the problems of definition and coverage would be magnified were an attempt made to include part-time workers in this directive. As to the question of the proper place for a definition of indirect discrimination, it remains the view of the Government that agreement on the definition of a part-time worker would more usefully be left to another instrument.
In conclusion, I should like to thank the Select Committee for its thoughtful and constructive report. It is informing the thinking of the Government on the issues, as I said before and as I trust will be apparent when our formal response is published in the autumn. Some of the issues involved are not easy. Many practical difficulties lie in the path of the purist quest for complete equality of treatment between men and women. My view is that the Select Committee have trod this path with clarity and common sense. I have no doubt that, as further negotiations are progressed in Brussels, this report will provide an invaluable source of information and observation with which to progress continuing negotiations.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. I do not propose
1608
to traverse all the ground again. However, it is worth saying that from the contributions made to the debate it looks as though among the variety of issues raised by the draft directive there are four which attract particular attention. They relate to part-timers, individualisation, indirect discrimination and pension ages. On indirect discrimination, as I understand it, the Commission has not yet given up the struggle for including something in the burden of proof directive, which would, if implemented, apply to this directive in due course.
I have listened with care to what the Minister has said. I am glad that he confirmed my impression that the Commission had given up its efforts to deal with child benefit on the basis set out in the draft directive. Although I shall read with great care what he has said, I must confess to some slight feelings of disappointment. It is not a unique experience in listening to a Minister from his department answering one of these debates, but there it is.
I am sorry that the Government have not yet written to the Commission about the point on the Social Security Bill that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and others, about bridging pensions. I hope that we shall be informed when some information is available.
I include among my disappointments what I understood the Minister to say about survivors' benefits and pension ages. I cannot claim to have taken it all in but it sounded distinctly like some of the pieces that I used to write when I was a civil servant when I had not the slightest idea what to do and could only write something which I hoped would put off the decision to some distant date in the future. I may be doing the Minister an injustice. I shall certainly read what he has said.
Although he said with perfect propriety that these were complicated matters involving expense and the interests of a great many people, and that it was necessary to move with caution, I hope that he does not overdo that. I should like to see the Government taking a rather greater initiative in coping with the problems that are involoved in the directive.
I rub in the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, made. There are a number of issues here on which action ought to be taken by the Government quite apart from what happens to the directive. They are matters that are of great interest and importance. That leads me also to this reflection. I find it rather sad and disappointing that there was not a single Tory speaker in this debate. Looking at the Benches opposite, during a considerable part of the debate, one found it difficult to believe that that great party takes a great interest in social matters which affect many millions of people in this country.
Having said that, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate, which I found of great interest. I can only say that it is not the end of the story and that there are issues to which we shall be returning in due course. I commend the Motion standing in my name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
2.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order reforms the law in Northern Ireland relating to the investigation and detection of crime, and revises the law on evidence. It is substantially in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which, as the House will recall, was based on recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's eleventh report. Those recommendations are also valid for Northern Ireland, where the general criminal law has much in common with England and Wales. The Government therefore consider it appropriate to introduce measures similar to those already adopted under what has come to be called the PACE legislation. Because of these similarities, I shall only highlight the main provisions of the order.
Part II gives the police powers to stop and search persons and vehicles, on reasonable suspicion, for stolen goods, prohibited articles or offensive weapons. But these powers are subject to a number of safeguards which will ensure that they are only used where and to the extent necessary.
Part III deals with police powers to enter and search premises, and seize and retain property. Under Article 10, the police may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to search for material which is relevant evidence of an offence. But if they require access to certain categories of material held in confidence, they must apply instead to a county court judge in accordance with Article 11 and Schedule 1. However, for Northern Ireland there is an additional ground in Schedule 1 on which the police may base an application for a search warrant other than for a production order. Protecting sources of sensitive information, for example, in cases involving complex and serious fraud is clearly important. The provision will give the police a further opportunity to satisfy the court that a warrant is necessary in order to avoid prejudicing that investigation or others.
It does not give the police an unfettered power to obtain a search warrant; nor does it guarantee that they will always get one. It does, however, give them the opportunity to extend their inquiries into related cases. It is important to recognise that the process will still be subject to judicial control and that the decision to grant a warrant will rest with a county court judge.
Part IV of the order restructures and clarifies the law on arrest. As with England and Wales, the more serious common law offences will become arrestable offences; and the police will have a new general power of arrest for use in circumstances where any one of five specified arrest conditions is satisfied. These provisions will put the law on arrest on to a more rational basis.
I shall now describe two of the most important features of the new arrangements covering the detention of suspects in custody. First, a suspect who is likely to be detained for longer than six hours must be taken to a designated police station, where he will come under the protection of a custody officer independent of the investigation who will be responsible for the suspect's welfare and for protecting his rights.
Secondly, the need for a suspect's detention will be subject to a series of progressively more demanding reviews initially involving police officers also independent of the investigation and, at a later stage, the courts. This review system will ensure that no one is detained for longer than necessary.
To complement these arrangements, Article 57 gives a suspect the right to have someone informed of his arrest; and Article 59 gives him the right to consult a solicitor privately at any time. The custody officer must ensure that the suspect is aware of these rights and how they may be exercised. However, the rights may be delayed for up to 36 hours if they are likely to prejudice police investigations; but any delay must be authorised by a senior police officer and only in respect of a serious arrestable offence.
Article 60 provides for the tape-recording of interviews with suspects; and pilot schemes will shortly be in place to test the necessary arrangements. My right honourabe friend the Secretary of State has already explained in another place that there would be very real difficulties in interrogation and intelligence if the arrangements applied to interviews with suspected terrorists.
Because of the serious risks involved and in line with the practice already adopted in England and Wales, the tape-recording of interviews will not extend to terrorist cases.
Articles 62 and 63 of the order incorporate the existing law under which the police in Northern Ireland can take body samples. Your Lordships will recall that for Northern Ireland, a swab taken from a suspect's mouth has been defined as a non-intimate sample and may therefore be taken without the suspect's consent.
In this context, there are four important matters to which I should like to direct your Lordship's attention. First, the integrity of the mouth-swab test has already been established by the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory.
Secondly, a senior police officer may authorise the taking of a sample only where he believes it will confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement; so in the absence of any material at the scene of a crime which may be analysed for DNA, there would be no lawful basis for the authorisation because there would be nothing with which to match a sample from the suspect.
Thirdly, there are detailed arrangements already in place which provide for the destruction of data associated with DNA testing. Finally, these powers have aleady been approved by Parliament, and the Government consider that their retention is both necessary and justified.
Part VII of the order deals with the codes of practice, which will provide detailed rules and

1611
guidance to the police on the exercise of their powers. This order deals with the powers of the police under the general criminal law and its codes of practice have similar application. However, the Government have recently announced their intention to issue guidance on the exercise of all emergency powers in Northern Ireland, including those available to both the police and the army. This guidance will supplement the statutory rights which are already in place for persons arrested or detained under the emergency law.
We now come to Parts VIII and IX of the order which deal with evidence. In such a technical area of the criminal law I do not intend to describe each article in detail. In general terms our purpose is to clarify and broaden the nature of what may be admitted as evidence in court while continuing to ensure the fairness of criminal proceedings.
Article 81, which makes provision in Northern Ireland for live television link evidence, has generated the most interest. Widespread support has been given to the application of these facilities to child witnesses in Northern Ireland. Criticism has however been levied against the inclusion of witnesses who will not give evidence otherwise through fear and to a lesser extent against the enabling powers to extend the provisions to apply to witnesses giving evidence from outside the Province.
The application to witnesses in fear in Northern Ireland is specifically intended to encourage more witnesses to give direct oral evidence through the prospect of avoidance of the possibility of in-court intimidation or trauma. It is the clear intention that the live television link equipment which will be open to use by both defence and prosecution witnesses will replicate as far as possible normal courtroom conditions and will permit the demeanour of witnesses to be observed by the court. Within Northern Ireland, where intimidation of witnesses is a prevalent phenomenon especially with its relatively small community, any measure which, subject to the discretion of the courts, increases the chances that justice will be done can only be welcomed. As the general laws governing the admissibility of oral evidence and perjury will apply to evidence given through live television links the rights of defendants will continue to be safeguarded.
We intend to monitor and assess the operation of the use of the facilities by witnesses within Northern Ireland before giving consideration to the extension of the general application of the article to witnesses giving evidence outside the Province. The extension to apply the use of live TV facilities in Northern Ireland to all witnesses outside the United Kingdom, which in common with Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 follows the recommendation of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, was already sanctioned by Parliament through the provisions of Section 168 of the 1988 Act. Article 81(4)(a)(ii) simply makes provision in a slightly different form and my honourable friend the Secretary of State will exercise these powers only whenever it becomes practical and feasible to do so.
Finally, I should like to mention Article 82, which places a responsibility on the police authorities in consultation with the chief constable to make appropriate arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing. That is particularly important in Northern Ireland where it is vital to promote a wider understanding between the police and the public. The police authority and the chief constable have already taken steps to develop new consultative arrangements and I would encourage all responsible public representatives in Northern Ireland to come forward with their support.
This order represents a considerable step forward and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches and in particular on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and my noble friend Lord Underhill, who was the principal spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs until a few years ago, I should like to express our appreciation for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at the Northern Ireland Office. He was a man generous of spirit and he was genuinely interested in the well-being of the people of Ulster. Throughout the five years he was at the Northern Ireland Office he spared no effort to ensure that the concerns of these Benches were always fully accommodated. I should like to place our appreciation on record. Of course we wish the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, well in his new role and we know from our experience of him that he will bring a sense of fairness and conscientiousness to his office.
I thank the noble Lord for summarising the order. He explained that it is substantially in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which operates in England and Wales. The Minister then went on to claim that the criminal law in Northern Ireland has much in common with the criminal law in England and Wales. Of course that is right but, nevertheless, we do well to remember that there are important distinguishing features of the criminal law in Northern Ireland.
There are at least three such differences and I think they should be mentioned. First, the suspect's right of silence has been substantially abolished in Northern Ireland by the criminal evidence order which was introduced last October. Another important difference is that Northern Ireland has its own emergency provisions Act to deal with suspected terrorists. The third important difference is that, apart from the scheduled offences, crime is seen to be on a much smaller scale in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. I am not aware that the police in Northern Ireland have requested this legislation.
When one reads the speeches of Ministers, one feels that inadequate attention may have been paid to those distinguishing features. The order extends the powers of the police—and I think we must be clear about that. When a government introduce legislation which extends the powers of the police, it is the duty of the opposition to consider whether

1613
the legislation achieves a sensible and overall balance between crime control and the protection of the rights of the citizen—innocent suspect or accused.
Therefore, I want briefly to concentrate on four areas. First, I come to Articles 57 and 59. We welcome the thrust of those two articles. Article 57 gives an arrested person the right to have someone informed that he has been arrested. Article 59 gives an arrested person the right to consult a solicitor; but both rights are qualified. They are to be exercised as soon as practicable except to the extent that delay is permitted in the circumstances which are spelt out in the articles. Those circumstances are identical in both articles. We say that those circumstances leave enormous discretion to the police. That is what we find a little worrying.
I referred earlier to the criminal evidence order introduced last October. Given that a suspect's silence can be used by the prosecution in Northern Ireland as corroborating evidence, it is important that the arrested person should have access to a solicitor's advice with the minimum of delay. I have read the terms of the fairly lengthy caution which is now being administered by the police in Northern Ireland. I doubt very much whether its full significance will be grasped by the suspect when it is administered. Can the Minister tell the House whether the department is satisfied, in the absence of a duty solicitor scheme such as we have in England and Wales, that a solicitor will be promptly available to give advice at the police station when it is requested? That surely must be an important requirement.
Of course we are anxious that Articles 57 and 59 work fairly and effectively, but again I should be grateful if the Minister in his reply can tell the House whether the department intends to monitor the working of those two articles and in fact Articles 36 and 37. We see a positive advantage in monitoring. I understand from the Minister that the department will be monitoring the operation of some articles in this order. If there is to be monitoring of Articles 57 and 59, who is to do that? Who is to monitor Articles 36 and 37? Will it be left to the police to monitor the police, or will there be an independent element in the monitoring procedure?
My second area of interest is the provision for evidence to be given through television links. As the Minister explained, this is provided for in Article 81. The scope of this article is wider than the relevant section in the 1984 Act. It is wider because it provides for such evidence to be given by a witness in Northern Ireland who claims that he will not give evidence through fear. I appreciate that the leave of the court will have to be obtained before video linked evidence can be used, but can the Minister tell the House what criteria will have to be satisfied before the court will grant such leave? We trust that the criteria will not be so wide that in practice it will be given on request. On the same point, when the prosecution applies for leave of the court to take evidence through television links, will the defendant have an opportunity to oppose the application?
The third area of interest is the tape-recording of interviews with suspects held at the police station
1614
which is provided for in Article 60. We welcome this article. I shall be grateful if the Minister can give an indication when the department anticipates that it will be in force throughout Northern Ireland. There is one slight concern which arises out of the fact that the article applies to interviews conducted at the police station.
I refer again to the 1988 order. What will happen to the questions and answers that take place before the interview at the police station commences? I assume that for the time being at least the questions and answers exchanged when a suspect is stopped on the road or when he is on the way to the police station will still be admissible. I noticed that yesterday the Guardian advocated that,
"As these pre-taped questions undermine the tapes, they should be stopped".
I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to comment on that wise observation. Before I leave the subject of the tape-recording of interviews I should be grateful if the Minister could explain more fully to the House why an interview with a person suspected of an act of terrorism is not to be tape-recorded? The Minister referred the House to the Statement made in the Commons by his right honourable friend either yesterday or the day before. As I recall it, he did not advance reasons for not tape-recording the interviews with a person suspected of an act of terrorism. I understand and accept the assertion, but I do not understand the reasons on which the assertion is based.
I do not propose to raise any questions on Article 62 which deals with intimate samples. I wish to have an opportunity of reading further the Minister's explanation for that article before I aim any questions about it. We welcome Article 82 which provides for arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing. The Minister touched on this. We believe this to be an extremely important article because it is a means of achieving better policing. The article itself contains fine words. Can the Minister tell us how the police intend to conduct this dialogue with the community and to be appraised of community feeling?
Does the department intend that it should undertake research in order to understand how people perceive the role of the police in their community? If the department intends to undertake research who will fund it? Will it be funded by the police or by the department? It will be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, can take this matter a little futher today. We welcome the order. It will certainly help the police. If the safeguards which are in the order are working effectively and fairly we believe that it will also help the citizen and the community.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to his new responsibilities. Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when the Minister for Northern Ireland, went to immense trouble to be of as much help to the House as possible. We wish him well for the future.

1615
As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicated when he moved the order, basically it replicates a number of provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act was based on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. In those far-off days it was thought to be a good idea to have a Royal Commission or a committee of inquiry before introducing substantive legislation. However, partly because the matter was so carefully considered by an eminent Royal Commission I think that the Act has gone through rather well.
At the time it was introduced, and indeed after its enactment, it was said by some that it was a monstrous engine of repression and represented a fundamental attack on civil liberties. There were demands that it should be repealed. Yet now, some years later, I think it is recognised that by and large it was a sensible amendment of the law which in many respects substantially strengthens the rights of criminal defendants. That is why I did not find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he drew attention to the undoubted fact that crime in Northern Ireland, other than terrorist crime, has not followed the pattern of England and Wales. That is a fortunate development, but it does not seem to me to be right to say that simply because non-terrorist crime in Northern Ireland has not risen as it has in England and Wales therefore an order of this sort is not necessarily desirable. I think it is. For instance, there is now a regime in police stations in England and Wales which both protects the interest of the criminal defendant and ensures that there is a wholly professional approach by the police. In those circumstances I think it is desirable that these provisions should be extended to Northern Ireland.
However, there are a few matters which I should like to raise which cause me some considerable concern. First, this is a massive order. It contains 90 articles and seven schedules, and not all of them relate directly to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It provides for major changes in the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. In the Commons they devoted precisely one and a half hours to discussing this huge piece of legislation, and the debate began at about one o'clock in the morning. This House is similarly fairly thinly attended. I wonder what would be the approach if it were suggested that we adopted similar procedures in discussing legislation for England and Wales or for Scotland. That would be regarded as a wholly outrageous suggestion. It seems most unsatisfactory that we are continuing to adopt this approach as regards Northern Ireland.
I believe that we are getting perilously close to legislation by decree. As I have indicated, I think Parliament is failing to discharge its responsibility for looking at Northern Ireland not only in relation to criminal justice matters but others as well.
Perhaps I may now turn to an associated question and a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised; that is, the 1988 Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order relating to the right of silence. My noble friends are undoubtedly firmly
1616
opposed to maintaining the present rights of criminal defendants in such matters. I have heretical views on it because when I was at the Home Office I indicated that it was worth looking at the matter again. That remains my position. Therefore, I do not approach the matter as being wholly opposed in principle to what the Government have done, but on that occasion I objected, as I still do, to the manner in which the question had been approached. I do not believe that adequate consideration has been given to such a major change in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Again, it is inconceivable that we would have agreed to a similar approach for England and Wales and for Scotland. There should have been a proper inquiry into these matters.
The Home Secretary, having spoken in the Police Foundation lecture about the need to look again at this question in England and Wales, established a Home Office working party, as one should have been established in Northern Ireland before this proposal was brought forward. The report of the working party was published only a few days ago. It referred to the Northern Ireland position and made a number of recommendations for England and Wales. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the report. The working party was chaired by Mr. Bohan, an exceptionally able Home Office official, who has just retired.
I shall summarise the position in Northern Ireland. A court is enabled to draw whatever inferences appeared proper from the accused's silence in four sets of circumstances: first, if he fails to mention during questioning or on charge any fact on which he later relies in his defence; secondly, if he refuses to be sworn or to answer any questions at his trial; thirdly, if he fails to explain to the police any objects, substances or marks upon him or his clothing or in his possession at the time of his arrest; and, fourthly, if he fails to account for his presence at a particular place when he is arrested. That is the position for Northern Ireland.
I now turn to what the working party recommended for England and Wales. It deals with what it describes as the "ambush defence". We all know what is meant by that. Paragraph 126(ii) says:
"In the Crown court, the prosecution, defence and the trial judge should be able to comment on the defendant's failure to mention a fact on which he subsequently relies in his defence, and the prosecution to cross-examine him about that failure".
That is a summary of the recommendation. It is dealt with more fully in the substance of the report. The Home Secretary is to consider his working party's report. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also be associated with a review, or a re-review, of this matter? This is the only group of officials to be asked to look into the detail of changing the law on this question.
Given the fact that there was no such review for Northern Ireland before this order was introduced, the least we can ask of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is that the Northern Ireland Secretary will have joint discussions with the Home Office on this important question. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that we should have wholly different systems of criminal procedure on the two sides of

1617
the Irish Sea. If anyone needs to be convinced of the need for a common approach he has only to look at the prevention of terrorism legislation. It was pointed out over a number of years that it was necessary to have one law applying both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. That is self-evidently desirable. We should like some indication from the Minister that there will be discussions between the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office on this question which will undoubtedly be able to take into account what has happened in Northern Ireland since the 1988 order was approved.
Finally, I turn to the question of resources. I think that all of us who know the situation in Northern Ieland, who go there from time and who are involved in any part of the criminal justice system would agree that it is right on such an occasion to pay tribute once again to the magnificent work done by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, where men's lives and the lives of their families are constantly at risk.
However, having said that, one must accept that this force is under heavier pressure than any other police force in the United Kingdom. Moreover, that was especially true last year as regards terrorist operations. The then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir John Hermon, indicated that he was having to make substantial reductions in his traffic divisions because of the pressures on the rest of the force. He was doing so in an area of the United Kingdom which has the highest number of road deaths and road injuries. That fact gives some indication of the problems facing the RUC in carrying out its normal police duties.
If we turn now to look at the order to which the noble Lord has asked the House to agree, it will be seen that there is a similar approach—and I have indicated that I have no objection to that—to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in terms of what I would describe as what goes on in the police station; in other words, Parts V and VI of the order which regulate the detention of suspects and safeguard their rights.
In a substantial number of police stations, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicated in his speech, custody officers will have to be appointed and they must be of the rank of sergeant. Perhaps I may give noble Lords some illustration of what is involved in this respect. I was discussing this matter with a chief constable only this week. When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed through Parliament, the effect of that legislation was that he had to appoint 22 new sergeants to those posts in order to carry out the responsibilities as custody officers. However, his force is less than a quarter of the size of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the level of crime in that part of England and Wales is miniscule compared with what is happening in Northern Ireland.
In such a situation, what extra resources will be provided for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? I very much hope—and I am sure that the noble Lord will understand this point—that he will not simply tell me what the increase in numbers in the RUC has been over the past few years. We know that there has been a significant
1618
increase in that respect, and quite rightly so. But this is a new responsibility; we are talking about experienced officers who must be appointed to carry out new responsibilities. I should like the Minister to give me some clear indication of precisely how many officers will be provided for the Chief Constable. Moreover, what overall variation will there be in the establishment of the RUC.
There is another reason why I think it is appropriate to mention this matter. When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed by both Houses of Parliament, this same responsibility was passed on to police forces in England and Wales. There was a gross underestimate of the resource implications. It seems to me that in the light of that that it is even more necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to reassure us that we shall not have a similar experience in Northern Ireland. In my view, that would be wholly unacceptable, given the character of the problems faced by the RUC.
As I indicated, we on these Benches regard this order as desirable and we think that it should be carried through. But, as I have also indicated, we are increasingly concerned about the way in which Northern Ireland legislation is being, considered by both Houses of Parliament. I think that the matter should be discussed through the usual channels at the earliest possible date.
3 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to join both noble Lords in expressing the appreciation we all felt for the great consideration and courtesy which was always shown to us by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I should also like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to what may be described as a hot seat.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the times of day at which Northern Ireland matters are usually debated. They come in the small hours of the morning, in the dinner hour or at a time like this, on the last day of term. It is scandalous that that should be the case when matters of such great importance are being raised.
However, I am afraid that it is not because of the usual channels arranging these debates at such times but due to the unhappy fact that people in Britain, whether inside or outside the Palace of Westminster, are simply not interested in Northern Ireland. They will not come to the debates. Any of these debates could be held at 3 o'clock on a Tuesday afternoon after Question Time and the House would empty within five minutes. There would be no bigger attendance than at this moment; in fact it is rather good now for a Northern Ireland debate.
One point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on which I seek further information. It is the taking of samples of saliva from a suspect. As he mentioned, that is considered a non-intimate procedure and it can thus be done with a considerable degree of informality. The noble Lord indicated that these saliva samples are of no use for DNA analysis because there would be no other sample with which to compare them. That was what I understood him to say.

1619
My first point is that, if that is the case, what is the point of taking the samples? We do not want the sample of saliva just to put into our art collection. We want it in order to be able to identify a person. Surely it is the case that there are or may be other samples for use in DNA analysis. If at some future date samples of blood or semen are found near the scene of a crime, they can be subjected to DNA analysis, and by comparison with the array of samples of saliva that have already been analysed, this informal, non-intimate search could result in the possibility of identifying someone from samples of other substances found on the scene of the crime.
I raise this point partly because I did not understand what the noble Lord said and also to show that even a non-intimate search of this kind can have very serious repercussions for the suspect—perhaps innocent—whose sample is taken.
3.9 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken on this very important order. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to its thickness and contents and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will excuse me for having summarised only what I regarded as the main points. Not surprisingly, I have been asked several questions.
It is important to realise that, although I welcome the comments of all noble Lords, the debate is about this particular order, not about the working group on the right of silence or the Criminal Evidence Order 1988. However, I have noted and will undertake that my right honourable and honourable friends will note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, I can tell the noble Lord as regards the report of the working group on the right to silence that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has yet to consider this. There is of course constant interaction between departments on this side of the water and departments in the Province. The Home Secretary will take account of experience in Northern Ireland.
I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, early in his speech. The right to silence has emphatically not been abolished. If someone wishes to remain silent, he can continue to do so. However, if he does, the court may draw such inferences from the silence as it believes proper. Putting an interpretation on silence is entirely a matter for the courts.
As regards the delay of access to legal advice, the same situation pertains as in Great Britain. The delay would only be authorised by senior police in cases of serious arrestable offences, as I said earlier. The courts in England, in stated cases, have confirmed the strict limitation on police discretion to delay. Only on very rare occasions will a delay be lawful. It is for the courts to say whether a delay is lawful. So there is quite a safeguard in that.
The noble Lord is also interested in the subject of tape-recording. That will be introduced as soon as the pilot schemes, which I mentioned earlier, have been evaluated and facilities are in place.
1620
Tape-recording of interviews outside police stations would be impractical. Exactly the same arrangements will apply as in England and Wales.
As I said earlier, interviews with suspected terrorists will not be tape-recorded. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the reference to a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was not to the speech that he made two days ago, but to the speech made on 8th November 1988. My right honourable friend did not feel that it was appropriate to repeat himself the other day. As the noble Lord will know, it is already the practice in England and Wales that interviews with suspected terrorists are not tape-recorded. We see no reason to adopt a different position in Northern Ireland with the real risk that intelligence would not be forthcoming and that suspects may not wish to have anything that is said put on tape because of the danger of their co-operation being recognised by fellow terrorists.
However, there is an even more important reason for this which I trust I have got right; that is, that the prevention of terrorism legislation is a reserve power, whereas the police and criminal evidence legislation is not. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to amend the prevention of terrorism legislation through an order such as this.
We certainly intend that the court rules made under Article 81 will require advance notice to the other party in a case who may as a consequence make representations to the court on the use of live television link facilities. Article 81 is, I believe, sufficiently widely drawn to include not only those witnesses who may be subject to intimidation from the defendant or his associates but also a range of circumstances in both terrorist and non-terrorist cases. The provision may, for example, be used in certain trials involving charges of rape or assault on the elderly where the victim will not otherwise give evidence through fear of doing so in the presence of the defendant.
At one point the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, sailed close to talking about duty solicitors. I anticipate that that is what he meant. At present there is no statutory duty solicitor scheme in operation. However, the Law Society of Northern Ireland provides a voluntary duty solicitor service at both Belfast and Craigavon Magistrates' Courts. Efforts by the Law Society to set up similar schemes elsewhere in Nothern Ireland have not met with success. Although initially both the Belfast and Craigavon schemes provides in-court and 24-hour on-call cover, the in-court system at Craigavon has ceased because of a lack of demand. The answer to the noble Lord is that the will is there but the service is not always there in practice.
Both noble Lords recognised that it is vital to ensure effective arrangements for consultation between the police and public and to secure public co-operation in preventing crime. Article 82, to which they referred, provides a statutory framework for that, and the Government will do all they can to help achieve that laudable aim. Who will do the monitoring? The answer is the police authority for Northern Ireland in the first instance, but I take note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

1621
I note too the very strong representations put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about legislative procedures. I have already questioned some of those for myself. I for one appreciate the difficulties posed by unamendable Orders in Council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly offered to talk about those issues with all interested parties and to consider constructive suggestions, which would have to be weighed against the vast volume of legislation on this side of the water which your Lordships regularly complain about. Did the noble Lord wish to interrupt me?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wished to say that some of us might be perfectly prepared to accept less legislation on this side of the Irish channel in return for sensible and proper discussion of legislation for Northern Ireland.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is fair comment but it could be that the proof of the pudding may at some stage be in the eating.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked about DNA tests. I too was very confused before I investigated this matter yesterday. Saliva does not produce a DNA test. An oral sample is taken from the lining of the gums. In any event, as I said earlier, it will be illegal to take such tests if there is no body fluid or other sample at the scene of the crime with which to compare it. We are not trying to compare one mouth swab with another mouth swab, but to use such samples as evidence either to prove a connection with a crime or to disprove a connection with a crime. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
I believe that I have mentioned most of the points that noble Lords wanted me to answer, except for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about resources, which I also regard as very important. The resources for PACE are already taken into account in settling the finances for the current financial year for the inestimable work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—and I agree with the noble Lord on that point—which is conducted in extremely difficult circumstances. It might help him to know that there is a total grant of approximately £450 million for the police authority. Specific PACE-related figures are not yet available, but, when they become available, I shall of course inform the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to take advantage of the noble Lord because I realise that he has only just moved into the Northern Ireland Office, but I should be grateful if he would write to me on this question. The issue with which I am particularly concerned is the precise number of sergeants who will be added to the establishment of the RUC. I should be glad if he would deal with that matter in correspondence.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was listening to the noble Lord when he spoke and took the point that it was men probably rather more than cash in which he was interested. I shall certainly follow up that point.
1622
I am extremely grateful to all three noble Lords who mentioned the valuable work that my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Lyell, put into his job with the local people in Northern Ireland, especially on the agricultural front where he was a very popular Minister and was able to put across in his own inimitable way points that others found rather more difficulty in circulating around the Province. I shall certainly point out to him the comments of the three noble Lords on his work which, I believe, was valued not only in this House but also in the Province. My one regret in accepting this appointment is that I had to follow my noble friend who is also a personal friend.
The order represents a balanced package of measures which not only equips the police with modern and effective powers to deal with crime, but also safeguards and protects the rights of individuals and, in particular, of suspects in custody. It will therefore provide for more effective enforcement of the law and in a way which can command the confidence of the public. That will enhance the relationship between the police and the community which is so crucial to effective policing in Northern Ireland and to the development and maintenance of a peaceful and settled society there.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may take the question of the saliva test a little further, as it is not unimportant. If I am wrong in thinking that saliva could be used for the purposes of DNA analysis, perhaps I may ask for what purposes the saliva samples will be used. Surely they could be compared only with other samples of saliva. Surely it must seldom happen that someone leaves a sample of saliva at the scene of a crime which would then have to be taken and compared with the saliva taken in the course of a test. The noble Lord said that he had looked up the question of DNA analysis yesterday, but, if he does not have the answer and there is not sufficient time to obtain it, I hope that he will write to me because I am rather mystified as to what the samples will be used for.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may just say that I thought that I had answered the noble Lord's point i n my response to noble Lords' questions on the order. I reiterate that it is not a saliva sample; it is a gum lining sample which provides the DNA. That must be compared with another sample taken from the scene of the crime to either prove or disprove the connection. That is the whole objective. I hope that I have now been able to convince and answer the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989
3.24 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland

1623
(Amendment) regulations complete the process of aligning the local government and parliamentary franchise by providing that the arrangements that apply to the registration of parliamentary electors, which are contained in the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, will also apply to the registration of local electors, subject to certain mainly technical amendments set out in Schedule 2.
I should be delighted to answer questions on this order but for the moment I think it would be appropriate for me to commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have looked at this instrument and it is to be welcomed. I have no questions to ask the Minister.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we too welcome the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989
3.25 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the three sets of regulations that are before your Lordships today-1 intend to speak to all three together—have a common thread. They all relate to the provision of social security benefits. They do, however, relate to two distinct aspects of benefit provision which, with the permission of the House, I intend to deal with separately. I should like to take first the community charge benefits regulations and then come on to the two sets of regulations dealing with the provision of benefits for the unemployed.
The community charge benefits regulations are an integral part of the community charge arrangements and they will ensure that the amount of community charge that people have to pay will be related to their ability to pay it. They will apply throughout Great Britain, and will replace the regulations currently in force in Scotland.
The community charge benefit scheme will be operated by levying authorities in Scotland and by charging authorities in England and Wales in accordance with the rules laid down in these regulations. The maximum rebate will be 80 per cent. of the amount that a person has to pay. This will mean that all charge payers have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the charge in the same way that all ratepayers now have to pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates. The Government are firmly of the view that everybody should be as aware of the cost of local authority services as they are of the benefits. The maximum rebate will be available automatically
1624
to everybody who is getting income support, and also to those people on equivalent incomes. People with incomes above their income support levels may be entitled to a rebate of less than 80 per cent. and the amount that they will get will depend upon three factors: their financial resources; their personal circumstances; and the amount of community charge they have to pay.
The way in which a claimant's rebate will be calculated will follow very closely the way in which rate rebate is calculated now. I trust that your Lordships will welcome the 15 per cent. taper, which is significantly more generous than the 20 per cent. taper now used in the rebating of rates.
Apart from that more generous taper, our objective in formulating the community charge benefit regulations has been to maintain alignment with the housing benefit regulations wherever practicable. This will make the arrangements easy for claimants to understand, and will also be helpful to the local authorities that will be administering the scheme. It will also maintain the overall simplification and alignment of the income-related benefits that we achieved in the 1988 reforms.
In commending these regulations to your Lordships, I should like to make clear the extent of our consultation since the autumn of 1987 with the local authority associations, and to express our gratitude for their co-operation. We have consulted formally with the associations and also with the Social Security Advisory Committee. The comments we received were helpful and constructive and a large number of them have been incorporated in the regulations that are now before us.
I turn now to the regulations dealing with the unemployed. Most of the provisions in these regulations stem from the powers taken in the 1989 Act. The matter is complicated by the need for two sets of regulations: one for unemployment benefit (the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989); the other for income support (the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989).
I think I should first point out to the House a very small misprint—a printed error in the published version of the income support amendment regulations. This was corrected in the version laid before the House but the copies that noble Lords have are wrong. In Regulation 6, new regulation 10A(3), the word "recorded" which appears in the fourth line of that paragraph should read "regarded". I apologise for that error and trust that it has not caused too much confusion.
The two areas which gave rise to most concern were the introduction of the new, actively seeking work condition and the new permitted period, which limits the time when an individual may, without a risk to his benefit, decline employment outside his usual occupation. We have repeatedly said that employment service staff will interpret these new provisions in the same fair and sensitive way in which they deal with the existing rules and regulations.
These regulations say that an unemployed person must, in any week, take those steps which are reasonable in his case and which offer him his best prospect of employment. That we feel is not unreasonable. However, to ensure that the test is applied in a sensitive and fair way we have laid down certain things which we think form a vital part of the picture. First, we have given examples of matters to which the adjudication officer should have regard in deciding what was reasonable in an individual claimant's case. Some of these are obvious: for example the claimant's skills, qualifications, abilities or any physical or mental limitations.
Similarly, he should have regard to how long he has been unemployed, his work experience, what jobs are available and where they are, and what he had done already to seek work. Others may be less obvious, but are nonetheless important. One example, which came out of our discussions in Committee, is the effect on job search if a claimant is homeless. The Committee discussions have also led us to specify that regard should be had to time spent on particularly worthwhile activities—for example, service as part-time fireman, lifeboatman or emergency workers, or attending outward bound or guide dog training courses.
Lastly, another group for whom concern was expressed in Committee was those spending time on vocational training or study, on voluntary work or in an employment or training programme. None of these activities will absolve the individual claimant totally from the need to seek work. We believe it wrong to do so since unemployment benefits are to support individuals seeking to return to the labour market. Nonetheless, all these factors can be weighed in considering either the amount of time which is spent in looking for work or the actual steps which the invividual claimant could be expected to undertake.
The regulations give examples of the types of step which a person may take. As we explained at an earlier stage, the list of examples is not exhaustive or exclusive. It is up to the individual claimant to decide how best to go about securing employment in his chosen field. The list suggests the most common ways of seeking work but any other equally or more meritorious steps will be taken into account.
A claimant will be expected to seek work every week. Currently most claimants attend the benefit office fornightly and that will not change.
There will be a number of circumstances in which an individual claimant may be deemed to be actively seeking work for the week. These include the first and last weeks of unemployment, when it may be unreasonable to expect a person to meet the condition.
During Committee there was a great deal of debate about replacing "refusal of suitable employment" with the concept of "refusing employment without good cause". The Act has removed the concept of the employment service having to prove that employment refused by a claimant was in fact "suitable". The onus will now be on the claimant to show that he had good cause for turning down
1626
employment. We think that this is a much needed change. But as it is a change we also feel that it is right for Parliament to lay down guidelines for deciding good cause so that claimants have an understanding of what to expect.
The concept of having good cause is not a new one. Current legislation allows a person to escape disqualification for unemployment benefit for turning down or failing to follow up an opportunity of employment if the adjudication officer decides that he had good cause. The adjudication authorities have built up a considerable body of case law but currently there is no guidance in regulations as to the meaning of "good cause".
The regulations before the House now specifically require the adjudication authorities 10 consider, in relation to a failure to follow up any job opportunity, whether the particular employment would be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's health or whether it would subject him to excessive physical or mental stress. Other matters which the adjudication authorities will be required to consider will include any sincerely-held religious or conscientious objections which the claimant may have to undertaking particular work and certain domestic circumstances which might make it unreasonable for him to accept a particular vacancy. The regulations provide that a person will not generally be able to show good cause unless his journey to work or training would take at least an hour.
A person who turns down a job on pay grounds will not be able to show good cause outside what the legislation calls the "permitted period" at the start of his claim if the job opportunity has been notified to him by the employment service.
The new Social Security Act provides for a permitted period at the start of a claim which allows a person up to 13 weeks in which to find work in his usual occupation, while avoiding disqualification for not accepting other employment. The regulations define how the permitted period is to be calculated. They also list the factors which will be taken into account by the adjudicating authorities when determining the length of that period. It will only be necessary to determine a permitted period formally where a person has refused work and the question of a benefit penalty arises. We do not think it appropriate to decide all cases in advance of any refusal because for most claimants it will never become an issue. The regulations ensure that, when a decision is sought, the adjudication officer will take account of the person's skills, qualifications and work experience.
The final point on this part of the regulations concerns "trial periods". This is a new concept which has been widely welcomed. It quite rightly recognises the concerns that affect people who have been out of work for some time. The regulations define the claimants who will have a right to benefit from this provision. The provision enables a person to escape a benefit sanction if he gives up a job from the sixth week up to the twelfth week of a trial period. This will apply to claimants who have neither worked nor been in full-time education throughout the 26 weeks before the day on which the new job starts.
The new Social Security Act changed the period in which a person who had received his full 312 days of unemployment benefit can requalify for a further period of benefit. The legislation enables the regulations to provide for an extension of the period in special circumstances. We have defined those as one which would, for reasons beyond his control, prevent the claimant from working.
There are a number of smaller issues that the regulations address. I will explain our intentions briefly for the benefit of those noble Lords who find many of the regulations somewhat impenetrable.
In order to deal with the problem of inconsistency between payments, called payments in lieu of notice and payments of compensation, the regulations will provide for the definition of all payments that are to be taken into account and the period that benefit may be affected. We are not seeking here to introduce a new restriction on the payment of benefit. Our purpose is to provide for uniformity of treatment.
We have always attempted to prevent abuse of the benefit system by claimants who break their unemployment benefit claim towards the end of their 312 days of benefit purely for the purpose of avoiding the requirement to requalify. The current regulations, however, provide too wide a definition of our intentions and, unfortunately, penalise some people whom we never intended to be caught. The new regulations make our intentions much clearer.
We have taken this opportunity as promised in December last year, to remove the additional qualifying conditions for seasonal workers claiming unemployment benefit. In future seasonal workers will be subject to the same conditions as all other claimants.
We have also provided for the addition of personal pensions to all references to occupational pensions. This reflects the fact that the new Social Security Act provides for personal pensions received by unemployment benefit claimants to be taken into account in deciding the level of benefit in exactly the same manner as occupational pensions.
The third set of regulations reflect the changes to unemployment benefit as they relate to the payment of income support. What I have said about the changes in the unemployment benefit amendment applies equally to the income support amendments.
These three sets of regulations represent a number of different changes to the provision of benefit. On the unemployment issues I hope that all noble Lords opposite will recognise that we have reflected in the regulations many of the concerns they voiced during the passage of the Social Security Bill through this House. The Committee discussions had considerable influence on the detailed provisions. I know that some will believe that we have not gone far enough to meet the needs or wishes of one group or another; but we have considered in great detail all the issues that were raised. We have declined to take them up only where to do so would have undermined our policy intention. I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not be bored if I add my congratulations on his appointment. I warn him that not often shall I be congratulating him. In fact, it would serve him right if today I went through every regulation in great detail. There are pages of them. But because these are his baptismal days I shall spare him.
However, I hope that the noble Lord will convey to those in authority that this House strongly objects to these regulations being laid only on 21st July and passed in the other place last night. I speak not only for Members on this side of the House. Now on the last day before the Recess we are presented with matters of great detail and concern. They are complex regulations and, in the noble Lord's words, they are often "impenetrable". Some are to come into force on 11th August and others on 9th October. That is not the way in which a responsible Government should deal with difficult matters or treat this House or the other place. We cannot amend the regulations; we can do nothing about them. The growing habit of government by regulation is pernicious. The fact that detailed regulations that affect thousands of our people are treated in such a cavalier fashion shows the style and pattern of this Government.
I hope that the Government will do their best to make the regulations better known to the public than they have been known to this House or the other place. It cost the Government £7 million in advertising to try to encourage people to claim family credit. I cannot think how much it will cost to enable people to understand most of these regulations.
I must refer first to the community charge. I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend to mislead the House but he said that people would be able to claim help up to amaximum of 80 per cent. in paying the fixed community charge. That is not the case. An average charge will be fixed and the 80 per cent. help will be based on that average charge throughout the country. Therefore, if someone lives in a high-charging borough they certainly will not receive 80 per cent. of their bill.
That point was made by the Social Advisory Committee because it was also most concerned. It estimated that the compensation, which represented 20 per cent. of the average community charge, means that claimants in Britain must pay much more. It thought that that was not a good idea. It stated that the amount represented an average amount and that the shortfall could be as much as 72p per week for some people in London. Can the noble Lord tell the House or write to me giving the average community charge? It is misleading to talk about percentages of an unknown charge. However, the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee was turned down. The reason the Government gave was that everybody should feel some responsibility towards the finances of the local authority. However, that is a contradiction because people are being made to feel responsible for the average community charge throughout the country. Therefore, in some places it will be more and in some less.

1629
The Government also told the committee that it would help people to accept their local liabilities. I know that that is their main argument but it does not carry me very far. A person may have recently moved into a high spending borough or he may be a young person who has never had a vote and will have to wait three years until he has a vote. There may be many people who did not vote for the local authority in charge. I do not believe that any local authority gets away with a 100 per cent. vote. Therefore, it seems to me to be basically unfair.
It is too late to get this matter right but I believe that Ministers should stop talking about these percentages as if they were percentages based on the actual bill which a person receives from his local council, because in many cases it will be quite different.
I should also like to ask the Minister why the regulations seem to be very unkind to people who have been in hospital for a long time. After patients have been in hospital for more than six weeks their benefits decrease, sometimes by as much as £8 or £9 per week. However, I understand that those patients have a continuing liability for the community charge. That seems to me to be very unfair and unkind.
I also think that the regulations are not generous as regards backdating. I mentioned the need for publicity. It will take a long time for these changes to sink in. It may be that some people will not fill in their application forms, which I am sure will be very difficult and horrible, until several weeks after the entitlement began. I hope that that can be looked at again.
Before I leave the community charge, I look forward to hearing from the Minister, if not today then very soon, as to how many people will be worse off and how many better off as a result of all this, taking on board the problem of those people in hospital. I am not talking about people who are permanently in institutions but it is possible to be in hospital for more than six weeks.
On the unemployment and other regulations, I shall not repeat all the debates which we have had because we went into a lot of detail and I am sure that the noble Lord has read those debates. However, it seems to me to be extraordinary that a government can bring in a set of harsh regulations and then tell civil servants to be sensitive. That is a very difficult position in which to put civil servants. They are not supposed to bend rules or make allowances. The noble Lord used the words "sensitive and fair". What might seem sensitive and fair to a civil servant might not seem so to a claimant. Also, there are many different degrees of sensitivity and fairness. If the Government really wanted to be sensitive and fair to the unemployed they would not have brought in such harsh regulations.
I understand that there are reasons from which the Government will not depart regarding people who are wilfully unemployed. On this side, we have never supported wilful unemployment but we have taken the view that the previous legislation gave ample scope for dealing with those avoiding work for no good reason. There are to be appeals, but how long will it take for them to be heard? What will the
1630
people concerned live on in the meantime? If they win, will they be paid retrospectively? If they lose, what chances will they be given of a restoration of benefit if they take another job? It all seems to us to add up to making life more difficult for the unemployed, especially in areas of high unemployment.
These regulations are bound to create anxiety and insecurity. In many cases that will drive people to take low paid unsuitable jobs and encourage employers to keep wages low, especially for the unskilled. The regulations, like the Act, do not come to terms with the real difficulties of the unemployed. Instead of hope the Government offer threats. We shall monitor these regulations with care and concern.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have very little to add to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, but I want to stress our great dissatisfaction with having these regulations brought before us so late. The point of regulations is that they deal with broad principles in a great deal of detail; and a great deal of detail needs a great deal of time to be properly absorbed and the implications fully understood. It is unreasonable to expect us to have studied, absorbed and thought about these regulations and then discuss them in this House at such short notice.
Obviously, it is not the fault of the noble Lord who is dealing with these regulations today but I hope he will make it plain to his lords and masters in the department that this is no way 10 expect us to deal properly with what is an important matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, these regulations in terms of what they mean to ordinary human beings throughout the country are a great deal more important than many of the matters discussed in this House. Although we cannot amend them, alas, I greatly wish that we had time to do a proper job. We certainly do not have time on this occasion.
I make only two points. The noble Lord said that the staffs would deal with great sensitivity, and so on, with claimants. Dealing with great sensitivity with people in difficulties—sometimes people who are awkward to handle and sometimes frightened and ignorant—is not an easy job. It is well known that a great many people in the department who have to deal with difficult casework have not been recruited, trained or paid to do the kind of skilful work suggested by the Minister. I know that I am spitting in the wind in saying that I hope the department will look at the way it trains the people in the department who do face-to-face casework with people who go to the department. Unless they do that, all the talk about sensitivity is, to put it mildly, self-deception because it will not happen.
From what the noble Lord said I certainly do not expect a satisfactory answer to my second point. The noble Lord mentioned the various ways in which the Government have considered the points raised in the discussions on the Bill about the time allowed for people to be excused, if involved in voluntary work and so on, from being available for employment, and how this would affect benefit. Several noble Lords asked how long people were to

1631
be allowed to find accommodation for children before being disallowed benefit because they were not available for work. The time in the Bill was left at 24 hours. A great many of us thought that that was totally unreasonable in order to make provision for child care.
We had hoped that, in considering the regulations, the Government would give thought to the hope that we expressed that longer than this completely unreasonable 24 hours would be given to people who had to find child care. I have not seen the regulations because of the time limitation. I did not hear the Minister say anything about it. I hope that I am wrong and that consideration has been given to the matter. If it has not, I beg him once again to think about it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I hope that she will continue to be kind to me but I believe that that might be wishful thinking. I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that I have already been kind to him once this morning.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. I quite understand that she has already been kind to me once today. She has not been particularly unkind to me since then. No doubt that will happen later in the year when she will find her opportunities.
I shall try to answer some of the points put by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Jeger and Lady Seear. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was worried about publicity. As far as both the unemployment benefit and income support charges are concerned, we feel that these have already attracted widespread press coverage. The employment service has already begun a programme of informing and training its staff, particularly its councillors, about the new provisions. The staff will fully explain the implications to the claimants as they affect each of them individually. The noble Baroness raised the question of 80 per cent.—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall take advantage of the Minister's offer to be disagreeable. It seems a little odd that the information has gone out before the regulations have been put through Parliament. I thought that they had to be approved by Parliament. If they have not been approved, how can they properly give publicity on the regulations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has misunderstood me. Obviously the ideas behind the regulations have been discussed a great deal. I accept that they have not been approved by Parliament. They were discussed in another place yesterday afternoon. I hope that this House will approve them later today.
I return to the question of 80 per cent. I said that the maximum rebate would be 80 per cent. of the amount that the person has to pay. What I said was
1632
correct. I believe that the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I referred to rebates being available for up to 80 per cent. of the community charge liability. I believe that she is referring to the help that will be provided towards the remaining 20 per cent. through adjustments to income support. That adjustment is not part of these regulations so I did not refer to it.
The maximum rebate for the 80 per cent. is not an average 80 per cent. but 80 per cent. of what is actually there. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that. She also referred to the backdating provisions. These have been carried over from the housing benefit regulations. A person's claim for a community charge rebate may be backdated for up to 52 weeks where he or she can show good cause for not having claimed earlier. I do not see that as ungenerous.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred also to hospital patients. She said that the regulations were unfair to them. People in hospital will continue to be eligible for rebates at exactly the same level as they would be if they were not in hospital. I believe that she must be referring to the change in the level of income support after a person has been in hospital for more than six weeks. Again, that is not part of these regulations. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government are looking sympathetically at the level of personal allowances for people in hospital.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I wish to get this matter right. A person in hospital loses one benefit after six weeks. The Minister has just said that the person will go on paying the same community charge as if he were at home. If he is worse off to the extent of £6 or £7 per week, that seems to be rather hard luck.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the community charge is payable by the individual, not based on the residence. I presume that what they are losing—but I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about this—reflects their saving in living expenses through not being at home. If I have that wrong, I shall certainly correct it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what about their additional expenses of being in hospital?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would accept that the savings from being in hospital are greater than the additional expenses of being in hospital. I would certainly think that that is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the question of child care and the 24-hour rule. I would remind noble Lords that lone parents receive benefit without the need to be available for work. The 24-hour rule allows people providing services, for example looking after children, to have 24 hours' grace before having to take up work. Additionally, where persons have already secured a job it will not be necessary for them to seek work actively for the last week of their claim. This will allow even more time to make suitable arrangements.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of the Civil Service dealing with claimants in a fair manner.

1633
We feel that employment staff are faced daily with individuals from all walks of life, with different needs, capabilities and expectations. They are constantly called upon to use their judgment to ensure that the needs of individuals are accommodated yet at the same time the conditions for benefit as laid down by Parliament are complied with. There is no question of them having to bend the rules to achieve that.
This presents a challenge, and our new provisions will on occasions increase demands for them, but I am confident that with the additional training which is to be provided, employment service staff will fully rise to that challenge in their usual way.
I am sure that I have not answered every point put to me by the two noble Baronesses but I hope that I have dealt with most of them. On any that I have failed to deal with I shall certainly write to them when I have read what they said.
I feel that debates in the House when the Bill was going through have contributed greatly to the regulations. I am grateful for all the contributions made by noble Lords during the passage of the Social Security Act through this House, and I am pleased that we have accommodated many of the points that were raised. I see the noble Baroness looks somewhat doubtful.
I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1989
Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989
Bristol Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the orders laid before the House on 22nd June, 14th June and 23rd June be approved [25th and 26th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions in my name. I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be to the convenience of the House if I move all the Motions which appear in my name on the Order Paper.
There are three orders before your Lordships' House today which between them will vest some 12·65 hectares of publicly owned land in the Black Country and Bristol Development Corporations. Your Lordships had an opportunity to debate 11 other UDC vesting orders a couple of weeks ago. On that occasion I explained that urban development corporations are set up under the provisions of Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to secure the regeneration of their designated areas.
Among the powers bestowed on the corporations to assist them in their task are the powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land and other property. With the land in their control they are able to assemble sites for redevelopment, reclaim derelict and polluted land and service sites to make them attractive to potential investors.
One of the ways in which UDCs may acquire land is by means of orders, such as these, made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State under Section 141 of the 1980 Act. Under this section my right honourable friend may vest in a corporation land held by local auhorities, statutory undertakers and other public bodies.
These three orders were declared hybrid when they were laid, and so were subject to a 14-day petitioning period under Standing Order 216 of this House. I am glad to say that no petitions were received against two of these orders. A holding petition was lodged against the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989, but was quickly withdrawn following further negotiations between the corporation and British Rail.
The two Black Country orders will vest some 3·03 hectares in four plots from Britsh Rail and two plots totalling 6·32 hectares from the Central Electricity Generating Board. The British Rail sites will be developed comprehensively in association with neighbouring plots; of the CEGB sites, one will be used for public open space, and the other for essential infrastructure.
The Bristol Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 contains two sites together totalling some 3·3 hectares. One of the sites forms a disused railway embankment in the south of the urban development area; the other, an underused site close to the city centre and the railway station, offers a major development opportunity.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for too long so close to the start of the Summer recess. At our previous vesting order debate a fortnight ago, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, stated that his side of the House recognised the important part that is being played by development corporations. I hope that the same view will prevail today.
If your Lordships approve these Motions, the Black Country orders will come into effect tomorrow; the Bristol order has not yet been considered by another place, and must now wait until after the Summer Recess. I commend each of the orders to the House.
Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 22nd June, 14th June and 23rd June be approved [25th and 26th Reports from the Joint Committed].—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, Members on this side of the House wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister who I believe will be taking on major responsibilities in another department, perhaps as well as continuing his interest in this particular department. However, as is the fashion today, it is hail and farewell. I do not know, but this may well be a valedictory opportunity for the Minister. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on what I sense to be a promotion, which is well deserved.
The Minister has been kind enough to give a brief history of the genesis of the urban development corporations. I recall this issue very well because in another place I served on the committee concerned with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It was a traumatic experience because it was on that occasion that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Mr. Tom King, sprang on members of the committee the concept of urban development corporations. Moreover, in the same Bill we also had the concept of the enterprise zones.
As the record will show, Members on my side of the House vigorously opposed not the concept—which is designed to regenerate disused land and make a better co-ordinated use of resources—but the undemocratic nature of the management control and guidance of the urban development corporation. Indeed, we continue to object to that aspect.
Of course, we have the opportunity to look at the record of what has been achieved over the past eight or nine years. Interestingly enough, living in London and being a London local authority man, the one in which I take the greatest interest is the London Docklands Development Corporation which, together with Merseyside Development Corporation, was given life in that Bill. Subsequently, of course we have the others.
The Minister and his colleagues will need to take carefully on board the fact that under a future Labour Government, which may not be far away, the whole raison d'être of urban development corporations will be looked at closely. We have always strongly objected to the fact that the local authorities within
1636
whose areas the urban development corporations sit, play scant part in the activities of the corporations. Despite what has been achieved by the London Docklands Development Corporation—I acknowledge that a great deal has been achieved—the voice of local people has been frozen out. The best way for local people to have their voice articulated is through their local councillors.
Before we move on from these matters, can the Minister say to what extent the local councillors in the areas of the Black Country Development Corporation and the Bristol Development Corporation have been invited to serve on those corporations. There may be an injection of capital; there is certainly in the first instance a considerable injection of government capital and there is also an injection of private capital. Private capital is invested wholly because of the private sector's assessment of getting a good return. We know that a great many people have made a bomb and have become rich through the London Docklands Development Corporation. I refer to building companies and to others in similar businesses.
What we want in the development corporations is a partnership. What we do not have is a partnership between local people, local councils and the corporations. There may well be a partnership between government and big business. There is little partnership between government and small business. One of the bitter complaints in the London Docklands has been the extent to which the little people have been frozen out, not only in respect of businesses but also in respect of housing. The cost of housing is astronomical.
This is not an occasion on which to cavil at what the Minister says about the transfer from one form of public ownership to another of 12-6 hectares, which is a tiny piece of land. To the extent that it will help the urban development corporation better to do its work, we have no complaints. However, I want to stress that we are not at all happy with the fact that local councils are being given little opportunity to influence what is going on. A Labour Government will be looking to see how we can alter the arrangements. Can the Minister give an indication of the extent to which local people, especially councillors, will be represented on these bodies?
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's warm congratulations on my appointment to the Ministry of Defence. I should like to say at the same time what an interesting and happy time I have had at the Department of the Environment. I shall never relinquish my interest in the department.
I am not altogether surprised by the noble Lord's line of criticism about what he calls the unaccountability of and the lack of democracy in the urban development corporations. They are, of course, accountable to Parliament via my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There are many opportunities for their actions to be considered, both in your Lordships' House and in

1637
another place, where there have already been six hours of debate for this year's round of vesting orders.
I should also say that most board members have strong links with their UDC area and my right honourable friend has appointed local councillors to the board of each corporation to ensure that there are people with special knowledge on the board. Many UDC procedures were based on the precedent of the new towns established by the post-war Labour Government. Those board members were all appointed by the Secretary of State.
More specifically this afternoon I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that as regards the Black Country and Bristol there are four councillors on the board of the Black Country Development Corporation and three on the Bristol Development Corporation, including the deputy chairman. I hope that I have answered the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I commend the orders to the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful to him for his helpfulness in the matter. However, he merely confirms what we think is a wrong situation. Everyone who serves on these bodies is a place-man or woman whose position is in the gift of the Secretary of State. The Minister tells us that councillors are put there by the Secretary of State. I say that in London the councillors of Greenwich, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham are entitled to feel that they know best which men or women are entitled to represent their areas.
Because the people whom the Minister appoints are local councillors they will know a great deal about the area. However, they carry the confidence of the Secretary of State and not necessarily the confidence of the local people and the local council. It is all of a piece with what the Government are doing in so many fields. They arrogantly believe that they know best and that they are better able to judge the mood of the local people than the local people themselves. I give the Minister and his colleagues warning that when Labour gets into power that omission will be put right.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Environmental Bodies: Restructuring
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission were consulted about the proposals to restructure them in Scotland and Wales; and if they were consulted when that consultation took place, what form it took and what were the topics covered.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I begin perhaps I may welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham. I am sure that in view of his great experience his contribution will raise the level of our debate and I look forward to it very much indeed.
The Question which I have asked today arises from statements made by way of Written Answers on 11th July by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment in this House and by the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. Subsequent press reports and press releases from a number of organisations indicate that the decision to dismember the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission had been taken without consultation with the two bodies concerned and that they had merely been informed of the decision shortly before publication. If in his reply the Minister confirms those reports, I look forward to hearing his explanation of why this surprising method of decision-making was employed.
The Minister must by now be very much aware of the widespread dismay and anxiety among conservation bodies about the proposed changes and their anger at the lack of consultation. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation which speaks for 48 wildlife trusts is appalled by the proposals which it feels will seriously weaken the whole of nature conservation in Great Britain. The RSNC gives examples of cross-border sites which will give problems if the split occurs.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds opposes the fragmentation of the United Kingdom approach to wildlife conservation and habitat protection and asks how the Government are to be advised on international issues and obligations. The Ramblers Association is concerned that access and conservation policy-making should not be devolved. The Council for the Protection of Rural England is alarmed by the effect on staff morale of the way the affair has been handled. It too fears the loss of international prestige. The views of the Nature Conservancy Council itself and of the Countryside Commission have been well publicised. There are many more examples, but I shall not list them all today.
It seems at best inefficient and at worst insulting to make major changes of the kind proposed without seeking the advice and opinion of those actually doing the work. Without their expertise and guidance, even in matters of detail the Government are quite likely to get it wrong. The way in which this affair has been handled suggests that the proposals have more to do with silencing an inconvenient conservation voice than with reorganising the forces of conservation more effectively.
The Nature Conservancy Council has dared to give honest opinions, for example on certain provisions in the Water Act, and it is now to pay the price. At a time when active steps are being taken to improve international co-operation to protect wildlife and to combat pollution, it seems odd to consider splitting our United Kingdom organisations into even smaller units without compelling reasons for doing so.
Have the Government considered the importance of interntional leverage? Does it not weigh with the Government that in an area subject to many important international agreements such as the Berne and Bonn conventions, the birds directive,

1639
the RAMSAR convention and others, and with the likelihood of a Community directive on flora and fauna habitat protection, there should be a strong voice in the United Kingdom to speak on these things? We enjoy some influence in Europe on conservation matters and the Nature Conservancy Council has earned a high reputation. Have the Government considered whether that influence will be weakened by these proposals? Are the Government aware that Wales is expecting to have a direct voice in Europe under the new proposals? I am sure that Scotland is too. This emerged in my discussions with those in Wales who are dealing with nature conservation.
There may well be persuasive arguments in favour of amalgamating the functions of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Many of us have discussed that possibility and have seen some merit in it. It is a view shared by some non-government organisations, but careful consideration would need to be given to drafting the terms of reference of the new organisation to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities. It is certainly not an exercise to be blundered into without proper thought and consultation.
The proposed arrangements are a hotch-potch, showing every sign of being a reaction to political and vested interest pressures rather than an intelligent attempt to improve what is admittedly an imperfect situation. The suggestion of combined bodies in Wales and Scotland, while continuing separate organisations in England, is a recipe for confusion. I can readily understand the warmth of some practitioners in Wales and Scotland towards what looks like an opportunity to achieve a more responsive national body within which to work. However, I wonder how much of that natural wish for greater autonomy is a reaction against the defects of the present situation rather than because of inherent difficulties of a Great Britain-wide system. I think they would be very wise to see exactly what is on offer before their full approval.
The Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, speaking for 12 organisations, has expressed anxiety about a weakening of conservation in Scotland. That body is concerned at the lack of justification given so far for such a move. It suggests that the Scottish consultation paper, published after the decision was announced, is bereft of substance. England and Wales have not had a consultation paper at all, with or without substance.
The arrangements for research after dismemberment will be crucial. In another place on 21st July, Mrs. Bottomley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said:
"The Government fully accept that the work of the three successor bodies must be underpinned by rigorous science, using data and expertise that the council has built up over the past 40 years. We shall, therefore, ensure that provision is made for the Government to maintain a Great Britain overview and that each body has access to adequate scientific advice on a Great Britain basis where this is desirable.
"We are ready to discuss how best this might be done".—[Official Report, Commons 21/7/89; col. 709]
Following those encouraging words the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State went on to enlarge on the options that she mentioned. As I read it, they do not include the option of in-house research. Perhaps that should be a matter of close consideration by the proposed new bodies before they commit themselves.
The Glamorgan Wildlife Trust questions whether finance will be available to give Wales the facilities it can presently obtain from Cheltenham and Peterborough. It points out that unless the present base of the Nature Conservancy Council is safeguarded wildlife conservation will be seriously weakened. I know that the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales confidently expects, in addition to having its own voice in Europe, to have its own in-house research.
I have not done justice to the many letters I have received from concerned organisations. I hope that in the autumn, at not too late a date, we can have a better opportunity to discuss in full the implications of what is proposed. Obviously there must now be a rational debate to decide where nature conservation in Britain goes from here.
I have some questions to put to the Minister along those lines. Can he tell us what kind of consultation is envisaged? Will there be consultation papers for England and Wales? One hopes for a better quality than that offered to Scotland. Will non-governmental organisations seriously be involved and their possible relationship with future statutory bodies explored? Might the Secretary of State give serious consideration to the idea of a sensible merger of the two English bodies with the possibility of their having responsibility for a United Kingdom overview?
The aim for all of us must be to do our best for nature conservation in the United Kingdom. What could have been a constructive redeployment of resources has got off to a very bad start. With a more sensible and flexible approach from here on much could still be achieved. However, the work of the Nature Conservancy Council has already been in limbo for some considerable time while it undertook an exercise on the future of its national nature reserves. We are now faced with a long pause before this legislation comes into force. I feel that there is some urgency required in laying down the lines along which the Government are thinking to give us all a chance to discuss realistically what is proposed. I hope that we may have satisfactory answers to my questions.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, first of all perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her kind words. I am also grateful to her for organising an opportunity for me to speak on this occasion in this Session. If I add the word "just", that describes the situation in which I find myself.
My contacts with the Nature Conservancy Council have been primarily through my position as chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Therefore I shall address

1641
myself primarily to those aspects which are scientific in origin. If your Lordships will forgive me, they may be even more parochial and concerned with studies that have been associated with that group of people.
I should like to start by saying that I am sure that the House will reflect on the necessity for this country to be concerned with problems involved with environments and with general conservation. If we accept that, it naturally follows that any change that is to occur in the structure of an institution concerned with that aspect will be of primary interest to the House. I must admit a certain failing inasmuch as I cannot quite work out exactly what is involved in those changes other than that change seems to be the air and mode of operation.
I have followed closely the debates in this Chamber and have noted with great interest the sensitivity of the House towards problems of the environment. I note in particular that it recognises the complexity that is often associated both with the collection and interpretation of data, with the possibility of other than an objective view being taken of data of that nature. It is therefore of considerable importance to recognise that any problem in ecology is rarely simple and that, when we deal with problems of that nature, we inevitably end up with a complex and seriously debatable issue in many instances.
The importance to me of the Nature Conservancy Council is that it was originally founded in 1949 and had its roots in the NC itself. It was spawned from that organisation in 1973 so it has the equivalent of about 40 years experience of the environment. That is an extremely important point to recognise in anything that we do with the organisation. It has certainly been internationally accepted as an authority. Those of us who, I am sure, visit various parts of the world will often find reference made to the excellent work done by the NCC. It plays a pivotal role in many discussions on the environment.
It was in that respect that I and my colleagues in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, when we addressed the problem of the release of genetically engineered organisms, had necessity to appeal to the organisation for help. Clearly anything that involves the release of an organism must involve a consideration of the ecological viability of that creature. In many instances, we found that the NCC were the people—in some instances, the only people—who could offer us serious advice on the issues.
It is for that reason that it finds itself a member of the RELEASE Committee which is a sub-committee of the ACGM and plays an important role in discussions on the environmental viability of release of those organisms. It is for that reason that the commission suggested in its recommendations that the NCC should be very much involved in any consideration of the release of genetically engineered organisms.
I may perhaps be pre-judging the issue because this has not yet been formulated, but, if it becomes the way in which we shall consider the release of genetically engineered organisms, I maintain that it would be a serious blow to the thoroughness with which proposed releases are assessed, and hence to
1642
the safety of the environment if the expertise currently available through the NCC were put in jeopardy by the proposal to split it into three parts. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what arrangements are proposed to ensure that the new bodies will be able to play as full and effective a part in such discussions as the one body does at present.
A related role that is already carried out by the NCC is that of advising on the release of exotics into the country as a whole. I merely remind noble Lords of the classic rabbit in Australia story to make one recognise the importance of that type of advice. Animals or creatures do not respect political boundaries. They are far more sensitive to ecological boundaries. One of my concerns would simply be how this problem will be dealt with when once again we split this community into three different sections.
Of course any problem in pollution or environmental study is very much more easy to detect than to predict. As a scientist I should love to be able to inform the House that the facility to predict is extremely well developed. Unfortunately, as I have already stated, ecological problems are extremely complex. Their very nature involves a whole variety of steps being taken. For instance, I recall that the myxomatosis problem with the destruction of the rabbit had a consequential effect on the green woodpecker. I shall not go through that chain of logic but I defy anybody to have been able to predict the correlation. For those noble Lords who want to know the answer, perhaps I may recommend reading the commission's last report. It is given in Chapter 4.
Equally well I believe that it is important to recognise that this country has been blessed with a variety of organisations that have spent many years inspecting the flora and fauna. Such amateur organisations are extremely useful as a mechanism for monitoring the general position over so many different aspects of environmental problems.
Perhaps I may just refer back to the problem of genetically engineered organisms. Once it reaches the stage of being a commercial rather than a research operation, the importance of monitoring will become extremely sensitive. I remind the House of the classic story of DDT and its relationship to birds of prey and the weight of their eggs. These were discoveries that came very much from the amateur approach to this problem.
Even accepting all the excellence that we find here—and in this respect I genuinely believe that this country is unique in having this great and useful body of people—there is no substitute for a systematic and continuing assessment which is only possible from a professional organisation. To my mind one of the many virtues of the NCC is that it is able not only to correlate the facts but to present them in a uniform manner—and I must emphasise that that in itself is a very important aspect of any problem. It makes the information available not only to people in this country but as a general contribution to the whole range of environmental studies.
Finally, I should like to turn to the fact that the NCC advises the Minister and the Government on

1643
international aspects of pollution. I feel that that will be extremely difficult to do if there is a three-headed rather than a one-headed situation. I recognise that many of my problems may not be real but imaginary. I hope and sincerely believe that in the long run the NCC will become an important factor within the general ambit of environmental studies. I hope that we shall find a very satisfactory solution to what at the moment I find to be a very worrying problem.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am today especially fortunate since it falls to me to have the very great pleasure on behalf of the whole House of thanking and congratulating a maiden speaker in this Chamber. It is not just a pleasure but a particular privilege because we have heard today a maiden speech of the highest quality and calibre, which I think bodes well for our House. It was the kind of speech which we are entitled to expect and indeed have learned to expect from a Fellow of the Royal Society. We know what to expect from a Fellow of the Royal Society because, as the noble Lord will presently discover, our Benches are festooned with them. But we are not in fact full of immediate past presidents of the Royal Society of Chemistry, nor do we have many former professors of chemistry from my own university, the University of Manchester, or indeed boys from Barrow Grammar School, which I am delighted to tell the noble Lord I shall be visiting tomorrow.
It is customary on these occasions to say that we look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many occasions in the future. I should like to go a little further. I do not look forward; I insist that we shall hear the noble Lord on many matters in the future. Indeed, I have made a list of matters of extreme importance scientifically upon which the Government are in the greatest possible need of the noble Lord's advice. The calibre of the noble Lord was evidenced by the fact that in making an entirely non-controversial speech he made it utterly clear that he has certain scientific misgivings about proposals to do with a scientific organisation.
The Nature Conservancy Council is a scientific body, not just a collection of welly-booted Greens. It is a scientific body with an immense amount of expertise developed over many years which is held in the highest possible repute not only all over Britain but in Europe and the rest of the world. As the noble Lord suggested, it would be disastrous if that regard where weakened in any way. On behalf of the House I should like to say how privileged we are to have the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, with us and how much we look forward to his taking a further part in our discussions, including those on this matter, because we shall have to have many bites at this cherry before it is finally swallowed.
Perhaps I may give a brief apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who would have liked to be here. He would have liked to say, as chairman of Wildlife Link, that he was wholly opposed to the proposals we are discussing. I must now make my own speech and not that of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport.
1644
Let me at once thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for having introduced this subject. So often at Question Time the noble Baroness has raised matters of immense importance. Very often they are issues that have been initiated by the Nature Conservancy Council, on which it has seemed to us that the Government have been been somewhat dilitory in taking action. The noble Baroness has done us such a service on many occasions. On this occasion she has opened the batting on a subject with which we shall deal often in the future.
The subject is very complex, with many strands to it. I shall endeavour to deal with them one by one. I agreed with every word that the noble Baroness said about the manner in which this decision has been arrived at. I shall not discuss that now. I agree with what she said. I prefer to concentrate my remarks on what is proposed.
The first strand is the question of merger between the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. That is not a new idea. It has been thought about very often, and indeed was proposed by one previous Secretary of State who later had second and in my view wiser thoughts. During the years when I had the privilege and honour of being chairman of the Countryside Commission, we worked very closely indeed with the Nature Conservancy Council. That was at the time when Professor Fred Holliday was the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. I had a very close working relationship with him, as indeed did the Country Commission's officers with the officers of the Nature Conservancy Council.
At one stage when the Nature Conservancy Council was required to vacate its very expensive premises in London, we offered it a share of John Dower House in Cheltenham where we had spare capacity, in the hope that it would move in and join us in the physical and geographical sense so that we could share overheads and infrastructure and so save money. It did not find that possible but I mention that to show that the Countryside Commission always wishes to work very closely with the Nature Conservancy Council.
Let us pause a little and think about mergers. It is not at the moment proposed to merge the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, though there are mergers contained in these proposals. I have always had doubts because I think that there are conflicts in the statutory duties of the two bodies. If we look at the statutory duties of the Countryside Commission, it has the duty to advise the Government on matters to do with the preservation of the natural beauty of the countryside; and the Government have a statutory duty to seek the Countryside Commission's advice before they take certain steps. Unfortunately, they do not have a statutory duty to heed the advice; but at least they have to seek it.
One of the main statutory duties of the Countryside Commission which is enshrined in the legislation is to promote access to the countryside for open air recreational activity. That is an immensely important part of the Countryside Commission's work in Scotland and Wales and indeed in England. The Nature Conservancy Council's statutory duties

1645
are similar: to advise the Government on various matters. But it means that on many occasions the Nature Conservancy Council's statutory duties are to keep people out of the countryside to preserve flora and fauna. There is an innate conflict there in which a merger between the two could cause possible difficulties. I have always thought that it was better to keep them marginally separate.
I now move onto the other aspect of this matter which is the proposal to dismember the Nature Conservancy Council into three component parts. I know that much has been said about this by many people. Many of my honourable friends in another place have been inclined to welcome it almost in Scotland and I am afraid that rather too many people have shared the view expressed from this Bench on a number of occasions by my noble friend Lord Grimond, who has amused us greatly by describing the Nature Conservancy Council as a collection of bowler-hatted bureaucrats who march off to the Highlands and Islands to tell crofters how to do their business. It is not like that. The Nature Conservancy Council is a scientific body, with a wealth of scientific knowledge built up over a long period. While I am bound to accept that its officers have had a great deal of scientific training, they appear not always to have had a great deal of training in diplomacy. They may have erred occasionally in the way in which they have given advice to crofters about the duties which are likely to be imposed on those who are lucky enough to live on a site of special scientific interest. Sometimes they have not put that advice in the kind of terms in which it is wholly acceptable to the Scottish people.
There are people in Scotland who believe that by merging or dismembering the Nature Conservancy Council and having a separate body for Scotland and merging that with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, which has always been separate—there is a separate Countryside Commission for Scotland with magnificent headquarters at Redgorton near Perth—they would get rid of a layer of bureaucracy so that there would be fewer of these bowler-hatted bureaucrats coming from England to tell the Scots how to do their work.
It is not as simple as that. I hope that my honourable friends in another place who take that view will think again. I hope that others will think very carefully, because the two functions of the two bodies are different.
The Countryside Commission for Scotland has different duties from that for England and Wales, as it now is, because there are no national parks in Scotland. The general view is taken that the whole of Scotland is a national park. Much of the work of the Countryside Commission of which, as I have said, I have had he honour to be chairman, deals with very sensitive areas such as the national parks in England and Wales (of which noble Lords know there are many) and other designated areas such as the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the heritage coasts and places like that.
The two bodies are marginally different. In this matter of dismembership there is the question of Wales. Hitherto the Countryside Commission has always had a Committee for Wales which has been
1646
given as much autonomy as possible and has its own headquarters in Newtown. Its officers have had very close links with the Welsh Office but the Countryside Commission for England and Wales as it now is has the statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State for the Environment and also to the Secretary of State for Wales.
I am told by colleagues in your Lordships' House from all parties who have great experience of Wales that they have a great fear that once the Committee for Wales is separated and becomes a Countryside Commission for Wales in its own right, reporting to and wholly dependent upon the Welsh Office, there is a real danger that that body will become a creature of the Welsh Office and its powers in some way will be reduced. I believe that those fears are soundly based. I should like them to be thought about carefully.
At the moment the Committee for Wales operates separately with a great deal of autonomy from its own headquarters in Newtown. Because it is part of a larger body which has a statutory duty to report to government and to the Secretary of State for the Environment in particular, the Welsh committee has been given a degree of independence 1hat perhaps it would not have under the new status. When in my day the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was the Secretary of State for Wales he gave the Committee for Wales and the Countryside Commission all the assistance that he could as did the earlier Secretaries of State. The anxieties which have been expressed to me are real and should be considered.
Dismembership of a scientific body—which is the Nature Conservancy Council—will not strengthen it; it will be in danger of being weakened. Its advice is necessary to the country as a whole, to Europe and to the world. The world seeks the advice of that scientific body on many occasions. I should not like to see any steps being taken which are likely to weaken its influence.
Similarly, I should not like to see a merger with what remains of the Countryside Commission for England. I hope that at the end of the debate the noble Lord will be able to tell us that there is no overall intention to merge the Countryside Commission with the Nature Conservancy Council. The idea may be attractive because there will be only one body with fewer officers. However, fundamentally the two bodies have different jobs to carry out. If one body has the statutory duty to promote access to the countryside and the other body has the statutory duty of keeping people out of parts of the countryside, I am not sure that the same outfit can carry out the two jobs.
In the past a better case could have been made out for merging the Nature Conservancy Council with the Forestry Commission. Had that been so it might be that the Forestry Commission would have behaved differently. A most distinguished forester, who happens to be the father-in-law of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, once told me that the extraordinary habit of single species, even-age planting with total clearance felling is practised by only two groups of people; the Prussians and the Forestry Commission. That is an interesting point.

1647
The Forestry Commission has learnt a great deal possibly from the independent influence of the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore there has been a great increase in the planting of broadleaved species and a movement away from the regimented blocks of sitka spruce marching across the Highlands and through the Lake District. Had the Nature Conservancy Council's advice been thought about a little more in relation to conifer forests planted in the flow country of Caithness, Sutherland and Wales, the situation may be a little better.
We shall have many bites at the cherry. The proposals will require legislation so we shall have further opportunities to look at them. While I am interested in some of them I am not happy about them. I am sure that they must be thought about most carefully before they are finalised.
It was an immense pleasure to hear a maiden speech of truly wonderful proportions. It gave me great encouragement for the future of this subject. We heard from a persuasive noble Lord with scientific knowledge of the subject of unequalled proportions so perhaps in the fullness of time our advice will be heard.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, on his maiden speech. All conservationists in this House will feel that he will fill a niche with technical knowledge and support which we have not had previously. We welcome him to the House and congratulate him on joining us.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that although he will disagree with what I am about to say, I think that he will come to believe that what I say is correct.
As regards Scotland, I know that the right decision is to create a purely Scottish organisation to care for its land and wildlife. Looking back over my nine years as MP for Govan—I fought three elections and the largest majority was 373—five years as Under-Secretary of State in another place, and five years as Minister of State in your Lordships' House, I cannot remember any substantial Scottish branch of an English-run undertaking that was a success. The English do not fully appreciate that Scotland is a separate country. It is the Secretary of State for Scotland who matters and not the English department Minister. Anyone who has worked, as I have, in a Scottish department with administrative responsibilities knows that his department is equal and not subservient to his English counterpart, nor does he follow English policies unless in his opinion they suit Scotland.
We conservationists have for many years been gravely worried about the apparent inability of the Scottish authorities to nurture and protect their wild life. I attend the trustees' meetings of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Many times over the years we have discussed Scotland's apparent inability to
1648
do what was needed. We have spent money but we have never had anything really worth while to be happy about.
So concerned was I that, as my contribution to the dilemma, this time last year I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible —because the Secretary of State could not come—to talk to my all-party conservation group of both Houses of Parliament under the title "The Importance of Scotland to European Conservation". I asked him to extol the unique nature of the terrain and wildlife of Scotland not only for the United Kingdom but for Europe as a whole. I hoped to instil into all concerned more pride and awareness of Scotland's heritage.
Of course the right solution is the proposal now before us. We should have thought of that ourselves. The new combination of local direction and control for the Scottish countryside and wildlife in the interests of the United Kingdom and Europe will put new life and energy into the Scots, who can at last run their own show. This proposal for Scotland outweighs other disadvantages.
I would have been worried if the proposal had been to combine the English Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. There is so much dedication and expertise in those two directing headquarters that much would have been lost. However, for the NCC, the bulk of the planning ahead and the vital technical information at Peterborough must remain undisturbed. Much of the NCC's field of advice and responsibility is nationwide and international. It is nonsense to suggest that what it does and has done for 40 years, as the noble Lord said, can now better be done by a government department.
The advisory committee for England was an afterthought. The Bill leading to the Nature Conservancy Act 1973 established committees for Wales and Scotland. The intention then was that for England the NCC would make its own arrangements. I wish now that I had not done it, but it was I who suggested an English council on Second Reading on 12th April 1973. On 8th May in Committee I moved and withdrew an amendment which was approved on Report on 5th June. All that is needed is to merge the English office with Peterborough's other activites, as was the original intention.
The changes—and there must be changes—need only be minor and with goodwill the problems will be solved. However, whatever they may be, they may be justified by the major change that at long last, in the interests of the United Kingdom and Europe, Scotland can take responsibility for her own conservation.
5 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, that was a very strong speech from the noble Lord and I can agree with only half of it, as will become apparent as I speak.
There can seldom have been such a united cry of outrage as there has been on Mr. Ridley's proposal to dismember the main statutory body for nature conservation in Britain. It is not only the decision to break up the NCC which has raised the fury of

1649
conservation bodies but the manner of announcement: in Written Answers to planted Questions, with no consultation whatever with the council or its chairman, Sir William Wilkinson.
The failure to consult is the latest of several lines of evidence of the low regard in which the council is held by the ex-Secretary of State and the shabby treatment it has received from him. There has been behind-the-scenes direction from him on its stance over field sports in general and shooting rights in protected areas in particular. There was an interesting and convincing article on this in the Oberserver last Sunday by Geoffrey Lean and Callum Macrae, headed,
"How Ridley Conserved His Killing Fields".
There has been pressure to privatise those national nature reserves owned by the NCC when the council believes that ownership is the only sure means of being able to achieve management wholly directed to the nature conservation aims. An example of how things can go badly wrong when others retain ownership is the Gualin nature reserve. There a magnificent valley and mountain area in Sutherland is being turned into the semblance of a tank-training area. The nature reserve agreement terms do not allow the NCC to prevent the owners using tracked vehicles to ferry fishermen back and forth.
There is the present embargo on the declaration of new nature reserves and failure to make a single conservation order during the past year. There has been a shortfall in DoE funding of the NCC of 5 per cent. in real terms, as publicised by the chairman at the launch of the annual report last November. This was disputed by the DoE but the council has already had to implement cuts in its programmes and in the funding of voluntary bodies.
There is reference in Mr. Ridley's statements to present arrangements being "inefficient" and "insensitive". I hope the Minister can explain what exactly is meant by those terms when he replies. One source of inefficiency known to the NCC can easily be cured; that is, to stop the DoE and others in central government from continually interfering in the NCC's running of its affairs. The Directorate of Rural Affairs in the DoE acts as minder to both the NCC and the Countryside Commission. In the past few years the NCC has had a Rayner scrutiny, a Pliatzski review and currently a Rogers examination on efficiency, added to which there are continuous staff inspections by a team of DoE and NCC staffing inspectors. This kind of peering over the NCC's shoulder is a continuous drag on the business of getting on with is proper job.
In 1973 the NCC went through the trauma of the splitting off of its research (left in NERC as the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology) and transfer to the DoE. Apart from the upheaval and demoralisation for many of the staff, headquarters officers were completely diverted from normal work by the endless consultations, the working out of the small print in legislation and so on. Little real conservation was done for at least a year and the publication of the Nature Conservation Review was delayed for three to four years. The proposed three-way split will involve still more complex legislation over allocation
1650
of staff and properties and will surely cause, at best, a marking of time until it is all over, predicted to be not until April 1991 at the earliest.
The word "insensitive" is a key one. One suspects that it expresses the resentment and complaint, especially in Scotland, that the NCC has ridden roughshod over the proper and rightful wishes of people on the ground to benefit from development of their own resources. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that there have been some tactless actions which were perhaps not at all diplomatic by some of the officers. However, the main purpose of the new proposals is no doubt to tame the NCC by putting it under the control of the Scottish Office, which is so beholden to the Scottish establishment of landowners, farmers, foresters, developers and entrepreneurs. The Scottish Office intends to take charge of the SSSI and NNR designations, and we can be sure that there will be less opposition from the NCC Scotland to many schemes which will be damaging to nature conservation.
There will of course be emollient reassurances of the familiar sort, but the indications of what is to come are in the past actions and words of those who will be in control. The Scottish Office has an abysmal record of non-support for nature conservation whenever it has been placed in the seat of judgment on conflicting issues. Both Mr. Younger and Mr. Rifkind have sided with the developers, either giving an outright thumbs down or, at best, a poor compromise over threats to important sites.
I shall cite some examples. In relation to afforestation on Mindork Moss and Arran Northern Mountains (both SSSIs) planting was approved after call-in by the Secretary of State. In the flow country there was a compromise deal with a four-zone presumption for forestry, ranging from against to strongly favoured. The NCC may be allowed to schedule about 50 per cent. of the internationally important bogs. Fifty per cent. afforestation at Creag Meagairdh was supported despite that being the only unplanted area left in a 20-mile stretch of hill from Glen Spean to Laggan Bridge.
As regards industrial development, there was support for peat extraction on Duich Moss in Islay to keep the whisky distillery working. An alternative source was only accepted after the EC threatened legal action. On Morrich More, another SSSI, and an important sand dune system in Easter Ross, a steel pipe construction site was approved. A ski tow extension into the Caenlochan nature reserve was approved in spite of NCC objections. Since then a reasoned opinion has been received from the EC saying that the intrusion should be removed.
So it is not surprising that conservationists are alarmed at what is likely to happen if the proposed change goes through. Scottish Wildlife Link, which represents all voluntary conservation bodies in Scotland, is unequivocal. It states:
"The Scottish Office's record of ignoring the advice of the NCC gives little hope that Scotland's precious wildlife and countryside heritage will be in safe hands, especially if the new combined quango has a reduced staff and status".
Professor Duncan Poore, a former head of Nature Conservancy, and a Scot, said that the idea was

1651
complete madness. There is every justification for believing that the dismantling of the NCC as set out by Mr. Rifkind in a wretched four-page consultation document (published only in Scotland) has not been thoroughly thought through.
One suspects that the Welsh scheme was added in an attempt to make the proposal appear to have a devolutionary aspect. The Welsh section of this new wildlife conservation service is likely to be the smallest of the three country units and with that it may be under-resourced and ineffective.
The noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, whom I congratulate very much for his excellent maiden speech, referred to the scientific achievements and the quality of the science done at the NCC. The science base will suffer especially from any carve-up since its efficiency and effectiveness depend on building a common base of information, free from any artificial barriers of geography. It is essential that problems can be studied countrywide in order to have the best chance of understanding them, for many of the most serious problems are common to England, Scotland and Wales. Some of them are international.
Acid rain falls all over Britain and we have to understand its pattern. We also export it to continental Europe. The global warming will affect the whole world. We need to put up an integrated UK programme of monitoring and prediction. I suggest that there can be good reasons for a debate on whether the NCC and the Countryside Commission could benefit from greater integration. But that debate should be conducted over a period of time and there should be full consultation with all the people and organisations involved.
I believe that all of us here are dismayed and horrified by what has been done. I hope the Minister will convey to his new Secretary of State the feelings that have been expressed here today and encourage a fresh look at the situation. It is not too late for that to be done.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers, but I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence to speak for a very short time. I understand that the changes the Government intend to make will require an Act of Parliament. Meanwhile, I believe that we should regard this as a consultation period of which I hope the Government will take good note. The changes that they propose are controversial and in my opinion they are not generally welcomed. If they are a sop to Scottish and Welsh nationalism, that of itself it not a good reason. I speak as one with a foot on each side of the Border. I am kind of Anglo-Scottish migrant at different times of the year.
I hope that the Government will use this as an opportunity for not legislating in the next Session. They have said that they do not wish to legislate so much. This is a subject that they can well leave out to advantage.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I should explain I am a humble honorary life
1652
member, is the largest single environmental protection body in this country. I would remind my noble friends on the Front Bench that the thousands of members of that society represent a great many votes. May I ask whether they have been consulted? Have the leading people in the RSPB been consulted? If not, why not, and will they be?
The noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, whose maiden speech we so much valued, pointed out that nature ignores political boundaries. Experience with the National Conservancy Council has indeed shown the advantage of being able to deal with wildlife problems and other ecological issues on a United Kingdom basis, on a national scale. Let nobody think that this is a mere frivolous example. It is a very vivid example. The Greenland whitefront—one of the rarest and most protected of all the members of the goose family—does not just come to Scotland to migrate; it comes to Wales, to parts of England and to Northern Ireland too. For us to have a policy for protecting such species on a purely Welsh or nationalist scale would be ridiculous.
Also, surely it is important that as a member of the European Community the United Kingdom should speak with one voice. It is no good disintegrating the advice what we give to Europe. I hope that the Government will abandon that idea.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the Countryside Commission has done very fine work in enabling the people of this country to enjoy access to our countryside on a much wider scale than used to be the case. But their statutory function is quite different from the purpose of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is to give serious, independent, scientific advice, and fearlessly to point out to the Countryside Commission if necessary—I use the vernacular expression—"You can't do that there 'ere". It is only advice that they can give; they have no final word, no veto; but that advice is very good and valuable, and needs to be given independently and not as a part of a conglomeration.
I have welcomed the change of heart (especially that of the Prime Minister herself), and the improvement in the Government's attitude towards environmental matters. Indeed, they have gone international on the subject. I wish them luck, because matters of the kind which we are discussing this afternoon are a test of the validity of the Government's commitment to preserving our environment. I should point out in conclusion that our environment is extremely vulnerable in our modern industrial society and in our country, parts of which are so heavily overpopulated.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point to say but a few words about the wording of this Question which refers to, "proposals to restructure". I wonder where the word "restructure" comes from and why we need it. We have been building and rebuilding ever since the Anglo-Saxons taught us that word. There are those who prefer Latin derivations, such as, construct and reconstruct; therefore why do we need to restructure? It is a word

1653
with no counterpart. There is no verb to the word "structure" so why do we need the verb to restructure?
Perhaps we can get rid of this silly word and go back to reconstruction. That word has been quite good enough for everyone up until now.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first, I must say that we on these Benches wish to pay a very warm and generous tribute to my noble friend Lady Nicol for seizing the chance—literally at the very last hour—to present this House, and a great many people outside the House, with an opportunity to give the Minister and his colleagues something, yet again, to think about during the Summer Recess.
I certainly take very kindly the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that if we are serious about our democracy then this is part of the continuing consultation process. In the nature of these debates, we know in actual fact that decisions are not taken and votes are not struck. Nevertheless, we very much hope that the manner in which my noble friend Lady Nichol presented a most powerful case—indeed, she did so knowledgeably, sensibly and reasonably—will have been noted by the Minister.
Secondly, we are enormously indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for one of the most outstanding maiden speeches I have had the privilege to hear during my short time in this House. His speech was so apt, so knowledgeable and, if I may say so, so positive. Many maiden speeches seem to box all around the matter under discussion and one wonders at the end of the day whether it was simply a pleasantry. But the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, has taken the opportunity and nailed his flag to this particular mast. Therefore we look forward very much to hearing more from the noble Lord on this and many other subjects in the future.
As someone who is passionately interested in the subject, but who is not remotely as well-qualified as I believe every other speaker who has spoken in the debate to be—I profess I am lower in the batting order in that respect—the key word which strikes me is not "restructure"; it is the word "consult". I do not think as parliamentarians that we can quibble with the Government's right to decide that they wish to see changes made, especially so far as concerns public money and public responsibility. It is only right and proper that they should do so. However, as we know, "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it".
I listened with appreciation to the statement that this is not in fact a new concept. However, we are looking at this concept in 1989 with a whole panoply of environmental issues—they are not all issues that we have been suddenly faced with, although some of them are—which we now recognise need to be grappled with. I appreciate, again, the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that we do not want to arouse the suspicion that there is some sop to nationalism as part of the nexus of the matter.
I must say to the Minister that there is a strong suspicion in some respects, whether the "p" is large
1654
or small, that politics is playing a part in the matter. That is not a surprising charge as regards a government who, of course, are a political body. But we do not want to think that here is an attempt to give Scotland the feeling that for many reasons, other than the ostensible ones, it is in the interests of the Government politically to move in the way in which they have.
Sadly, I believe that the Government have gone about the matter in the wrong way. I think that the case has been made with considerable force. I listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who certainly gave as good as he got—not that he got very much from the point of view of personal attack or abuse. However, on the argument side he was very strong. I do not say that there is no case to be made for the changes the Government propose to make.
However, I have received from organisations which I respect and which have helped me over the years with environmental matters such as the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, the Local Government and Planning Bill and the Water Bill expressions of grave disquiet about the proposals. I refer to bodies such as the Ramblers Association, the RSPB, the Countryside Commission and so on.
In the light of the likely reaction to the proposals, why did the Minister decide not to engage even in the most tenuous of consultations with the groups who will be affected by them? It cannot be that the Minister is afraid of an argument. The noble Lord who is to reply is certainly not afraid. The Secretary of State who has just gone to another department would not be afraid of an argument. The Minister must tell us why in such a cack-handed way the department has decided that this is the best way to make friends and influence people.
We are a small country. We are part of a large continent. That continent is a small part of a large world. It is no good talking in terms of managing environmental challenge on the basis of a border between England and Wales. We are small enough not to subdivide or to divide what we already have. I listened with great attention and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who speaks with special knowledge of these matters. He told us about these power struggles between the groups. We are all mature people. The people who are affected—the chairman, the committees and the range of people, most of them volunteers, who are drawn in—are all adults. They are committed and experienced and deserve to be treated better.
In an excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that the way in which such people were treated was symptomatic of the low regard in which they were held by the Secretary of State. I honestly believe that the Minister has an opportunity to smooth down a great many feathers. This issue will run and run in many ways.
When the noble Lord comes to reply perhaps he will deal with one or two points that have exercised my mind. It is quite clear that people in Scotland who take an interest believe that this will be to their benefit. We have to ask how many people in the country take an interest. What consultation took place with the Welsh Office in order to get the

1655
view of Wales on this matter? We know that the practitioners, the people at the coal face, feel assuaged. Can the Minister say to what extent the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State for Wales were consulted, and what were his views on these matters? Were views canvassed, even outside a formal consultation process, to get some reaction?
On the Front Bench with me today is my noble friend Lord Williams, who is president of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. He speaks with considerable knowledge and without presumption on these matters. He has told me that there is a very strong suspicion among his colleagues on that body and others as to precisely what the Minister seeks to achieve. If my noble friend Lady White, who takes a very keen interest in these matters, had been here, she would certainly have expressed those views.
What can we try to do? I do not wish to weary the House by repeating for the third or fourth time how outraged the other bodies are by what has happened. When one looks at the statement made by the Minister on 11th July, I think that those bodies are entitled to be very angry indeed. Mr Ridley said on that occasion that there were increasing feelings that those arrangements—that is, the current arrangements—were inefficient, insensitive and meant that conservation issues in both Scotland and Wales were determined with too little regard for the particular requirements in those countries.
Where is the evidence? Who are the people who have said that? I believe that the Minister is entitled to defend the former Secretary of State and give us chapter and verse as to where the evidence came from. There are other bodies which have spoken in similar tones of outrage.
We need the Minister to tell us where we go from here. A number of Members of the House have reminded us that legislation will be required to give effect to these changes. I noted very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said—in effect that no changes were desirable. However, if changes are to be forthcoming, then they need to be put in the form of a statute so that we can examine them.
The Minister and his colleagues would recoup a great deal of their authority on these matters if during the next stages they took consultation seriously. We all know that the intention of the Government has been trailed very heavily to produce what has been called a "green" Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Within that "green" Bill there will be matters—I see the eyebrows of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, rise with surprise. It is not very often that I can tell him something, especially on these subjects. Perhaps this will not be in the next Session, but the Government have rested very heavily on their stand on environmental matters on the basis that they will produce a "green" Bill. In that Bill there are certain to be chapters which deal with these subjects.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to respond to a suggestion. When the House was dealing with the copyright Bill and the Consumer Protection Bill there was wide consultation among groups of people
1656
who knew what they were talking about before the Bill appeared. They were able to make sure that as far as possible it contained the elements which would satisfy most of the people who would be vocal on the matter.
Can the Minister tell us whether that kind of suggestion would be examined sympathetically by him and his colleagues? Unless the Government decide to take people with them, they will find them standing against them. It is nonsense for the Government to say that they wish to protect our environment and do many things when the people who are affected believe that the true purport of what is being done is not to strengthen environmental and ecological protection but to weaken it. People deserve to be treated as senior, adult and committed. What the Minister has done has certainly been the reverse.
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I share the sentiments and concern which have been expressed on all sides today about the need to preserve and enhance the proud reputation which the United Kingdom has earned as a pioneer in understanding and conserving wildlife and beautiful landscapes. Before going another inch in the progress of your Lordships' debate this afternoon, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, on an elegant and erudite contribution to your Lordships' debate
That is all the more so when one considers that there are many who might have thought it would be worth while waiting until the next Session rather than attending on what could be assumed to be an empty afternoon. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, ensured that it would not be an empty afternoon and your Lordships' debate has been greatly enhanced by the maiden speech of the noble Lord. We were all grateful and privileged to be present to hear it.
The proposals which the Government have put forward for reorganising the conservation agencies are designed to streamline the work of the NCC and the Countryside Commission so that over the next decade we shall be in a position to respond to the increasing need for conservation initiatives in a way which respects the separate needs of different parts of the Kingdom.
I was surprised to hear these modest proposals being assailed in some parts of the House with emotive language such as the "dismemberment" of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am afraid there have been some misrepresentations in the English media, accusing the Government of various crimes, including rural vandalism. I refer to the English media because the reactions in Scotland and Wales have in many ways been supportive, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, pointed out to your Lordships' House. In Scotland the chairman of the NCC's own advisory committee has written to Ministers stating that:
"the new arrangements have my wholehearted support, provided that the new agency is properly staffed and funded".

1657
A number of other existing members of the NCC have told my colleagues that they echo these views. When our proposals have been fully digested, I believe that the whole council will come to accept the views expressed by the chairman of the influential voluntary body in Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, who stated in a recent letter to The Scotsman that they:
"could turn out to be the most effective and imaginative in our generation".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will also allow me to tell the House that in that same letter, the trust also stated:
"while Scotland undeniably has problems which do not apply south of the Border, we are an integral part of the UK with many cross-border links with both statutory and voluntary sides of nature conservation. It is important therefore that formal liaison is kept with England, Wales and Westminster".
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have in no way proposed that there will cease to be liaison. I thoroughly concur with the reputation which both the NCC and the Countryside Commission for England and Wales have acquired among conservationists for the high standard of their work over the years. How has this reputation come about? The Government's role in providing the right conditions for their work to flourish has been a help. We have done this in two main ways, through legislation and increased resources.
Many noble Lords will not need me to remind them about the Wildlife and Countryside Act which your Lordships' House passed in 1981 after long debate in this Chamber. The Act marked a sea-change in conservation. It provided the most comprehensive protection for wildlife habitats and individual species ever seen in this country. The Act stands comparison with the statutory framework of every other country in Europe and beyond, not just because of what it lays down but because of the thoroughness which has been shown in implementing the concepts and strategies it contains.
The Act has many provisions to summarise. However, I wish to mention those which created the network of new style SSSIs. SSSIs designated by the Nature Conservancy Council now cover more than 7 per cent. of the land surface of Great Britain. That should rise still further as the programme is completed; and completed it will be by the NCC and by its successor bodies. The success it has brought is also undeniable. As the NCC has reported, not a single SSSI notified under the 1981 Act has been destroyed in the past three years. A very few—but still more than we would wish—have been damaged, but the overall record for a small and densely populated island is surely a matter of pride.
None of the NCC's achievements—which go far beyond SSSIs—or those of the Countryside Commission would have been remotely possible without the resources which the Government provided to implement the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In 1979–80 government grant aid to the NCC and the Countryside Commission came to a total of £13 million. This year the NCC alone will receive some £40 million, and the Countryside Commission a further £22 million. That is a total of approximately
1658
£62 million. Virtually all the agency spending—99 per cent.—is provided out of government grant-in-aid. I know that there has been criticism of tighter resources this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, but the overall record shows that we have increased our grant aid to the two agencies by some 134 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.
During this decade both agencies have been transformed by their expanded duties and resources. That is particularly true of the NCC. When the council's precursor, the old Nature Conservancy, was orginally set up in 1949, it was designed to be a small research council. It was perfectly sensible that it should cover the whole of Great Britain. In 1955 it employed just 125 people. Numbers rose during the 1950s and 1960s but even in 1973, when it was amicably divorced from the NERC under the Nature Conservancy Council Act, it was intended that the NCC should employ only about 350 staff. Today the NCC has more than 1,100 staff, many of whom are deployed on the new duties given to the council under the 1981 Act.
Furthermore, the absolute size of the NCC is only part of the story. Even more significant is the fact that it has to carry out many of its functions—designating and monitoring SSSIs, negotiating management agreements, planning marine nature reserves—in areas of the country which have very different circumstances and needs. If conservation is to work it must be based on consent—active consent by the myriad landowners, farmers and voluntary bodies and individuals who are in a position to look after wildlife and landscape. The consent must be willingly and preferably enthusiastically given. Obtaining it means that the statutory agencies have to tailor and present their policies to fit the local context. Imposing them from on high simply will not work. Where this has been tried—in the Flow Country and Islay to name two examples—the effect is entirely counter-productive to conservation and a new start has had to be made.
The NCC already has country headquarters in Edinburgh, Bangor and Peterborough, and a devolved regional structure below that, implying that there is no problem. The Government questions this. Under current legislation, there is little scope for the NCC to delegate any major decisions from Peterborough. And even if it could, there will always be the impression in Scotland and Wales that an alien body, out of touch with local feelings, is attempting to impose a straitjacket on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the great upland areas of Wales, labelled indelibly "Made in England". Quite often the position in Scotland, and in Wales has been reached where scientifically valid arguments for a strict conservation policy have been obscured by a chorus of protest about the origin of those arguments and the manner of their presentation.
Our proposals to create separate agencies in England, Scotland and Wales will establish much clearer lines of responsibility and accountability for nature conservation. They will improve the sensitivity and efficiency with which the agencies carry out their functions, and provide opportunities

1659
to find further ways of carrying forward the cause of conservation with the support of the whole community, and not just committed conservationists, important though they are. They will also remove the anachronism whereby the Secretary of State for the environment is involved in the detailed implementation of nature conservation policies in Scotland and Wales through sponsorship of a Great Britain-wide body. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales already exercise considerable powers in their countries, such as the making of nature conservation orders and the designation of marine nature reserves. It is only logical that they should be able to exercise them in partnership with agencies specifically attuned to the needs of Scotland and Wales, in the same way as we already organise built heritage.
I shall now say more about the position in both Scotland and Wales, where our proposals will have the further benefit of requiring integration between the work currently carried out by the NCC and the Countryside Commission. Our proposals have been fully set out in the consultative paper entitled Scotland's Natural Heritage published on 11th July. This details the special qualities and directory of Scottish wildlife and landscape, and I shall not repeat the arguments today, especially as they have been so well received by Scottish opinion. I have already mentioned the support they have received from the chairmen of the NCC's Scottish Committee and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. To these must be added endorsements from the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, Mr. Roger Carr, and the convenor of the Scottish Landowners' Federation.
Let there be no doubt that our proposals in Scotland do not in any way represent a dilution of nature conservation or of the science base on which it depends; rather the contrary is the case. We have developed proposals which best suit the different circumstances in Britain.
I now turn to the position in Wales. There too there will be a single, new body with responsibility for the functions at present discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. Although both bodies at present have a committee for Wales, they are purely advisory whereas we propose that the new body should have full executive powers and its own grant-in-aid from the Welsh Office. It will be responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales for carrying out all the appropriate conservation and countryside activities in Wales under the relevant legislation.
Although Wales has much in common with England, it is nevertheless a separate nation with its own culture and language. Wales is particularly rich in upland habitats which are often remote and have become the home of many rare species of flora and fauna. The same areas are also among the most beautiful parts of Wales and attract millions of walkers, tourists and holidaymakers during the course of the year. Wales also has three of the 10 national parks in England and Wales—two in the uplands (Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia) and the unique Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.
1660
In the lowlands, the farms tend to be much smaller than in England and a high proportion of the traditional hedgerows and other field boundaries have survived. Another important distinguishing factor is that nearly 80 per cent. of Wales has been designated an EC less favoured area. All of those special factors can be better covered by a body based in Wales, attuned to Welsh needs. Once again, our proposals have been welcomed by the majority of opinion in the Principality who see the benefit and opportunities for conservation.
I should now like to deal with two related areas where there is genuine concern—the position of existing NCC employees and the organisation's science base. When we announced the proposals, we rightly paid tribute to the achievements of NCC's existing staff who are carrying forward conservation in many different spheres. They set high standards for themselves. Many carry on their work in their own time. They are dedicated professionals. The Government want their skills and enthusiasm to be harnessed by the successor bodies.
Whenever the Government change structures in the public sector, we are asked to give assurances about the future employment of staff. That is always difficult because the new bodies will be employers in their own right and must eventually take responsibility for their own staff. However, I can say that the Government intend to ensure that all members of the NCC's staff employed by the council at the date of transfer are offered employment in the new organiltion on terms and conditions no less favourable than those that they have at present. That applies not only to staff in the regions and existing country HQs, but also to those in the Great Britain HQ in Peterborough, including scientists and other specialists.
That brings me on to the second area of concern to which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, drew our attention; namely, the NCC's science base. First, I should define what I mean by that concept. I define it as the scientific expertise and data held in all parts of the organisation. It does not reside exclusively in the chief scientist's directorate in Peterborough. The whole of the NCC's work is very properly underpinned by science. That must continue, but it is far from the case that all of that work requires unified organisational arrangements across the whole of Great Britain.
There are scientists employed at every level in the organisation. There are some specialisms, based mainly but not exclusively in Peterborough, which it would be difficult or uneconomic to duplicate in each of the successor bodies. There are also some functions where the need exists to take a GB or UK-wide view. We expect that the relevant expertise, including staff, and data will be utilised via co-operative arrangements between the successor bodies to enable that view to be formed and, where appropriate, for the Government to be able to obtain advice on that basis.
We are very ready to discuss those matters in detail with the NCC and other relevant interests before deciding how best to meet the needs of conservation. If necessary, the legislation will

1661
provide for such co-operation. The point here is that perfectly satisfactory arrangements are available within the organisational framework that the Government intend. It would be wrong to allow the understandable but mistaken concerns that have been expressed to overshadow the very real gains in conservation where it matters—on the ground—that we are determined shall flow from the new bodies.
Having said all that about the science base, I want to re-emphasise that the NCC is not a research council and already commissions most of its scientific work from other bodies such as the Natural Environment Research Council and universities. The NCC has been aware for several years that as much research work as possible is subject to competitive tender and is contracted out where appropriate. We intend to continue to apply that policy to the successor bodies.
I should like to say a few words about international issues which many noble Lords have mentioned during the debate. There appears to be a widespread belief that because wildlife crosses political boundaries, and this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, the NCC has to be a GB body.
In fact, the priority for the conservation agencies is to ensure that wildlife is effectively protected at grass roots level in local communities, and in co-operation with voluntary bodies like the county trusts. Where advice is needed at international (and national) level, we shall make arrangements for the new agencies to provide it, and for the Government to act on it, whether in Brussels, or in the various international wildlife conventions to which the UK is party, such a CITES and Ramsar, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, drew your Lordships' attention.
We believe that there is a strong case for the reforms that the Government have put forward. I shall of course ensure that my colleagues take note of the concerns which so many of your Lordships have expressed this afternoon, bearing in mind the wealth of experience for which your Lordships' House is noted on all matters affecting wildlife and the countryside. It will be most valuable as we frame our legislative proposals in the coming months.
Perhaps I may end by saying that discussions are now taking place. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the Welsh Office was fully consulted about the details of organisation to ensure the best way to carry forward the Government's wishes and, as many noble Lords pointed out from all sides of the House, there will be a full opportunity to debate these matters in both Houses when the Government submit legislative proposals in due course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, drew to your Lordships' attention, this is the very first and simple bite of not one but many cherries. Finally, let me say that I shall use the opportunity of the Recess of your Lordships' House to investigate the connection between Prussians and the Forestry Commission.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I asked whether there would be
1662
consultation documents for England and Wales and I do not think that the answer was among the great amount of information that he gave.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, currently consultations are taking place between the NCC and the department. We believe that those will then spread to other interested bodies such as the RSPB and so on during the autumn. I shall have to inquire about the discussion documents and in due course write to the noble Baroness, if I may.

Adjournment
5.47 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving the temporary adjournment of the House I think that this would be the most appropriate time to express our gratitude to all those who serve the House in any capacity whatever for their work during what I hope will prove to have been a quite extraordinary Session. In particular it must be right to recognise the extra efforts that many have had to make in order to be here day after day despite the present transport difficulties. On behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House I should also like to wish your Lordships in all other parts of the House as well as all the staff everywhere in the building a very good Summer Recess.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 9 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until 9 p.m.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip in expressing our thanks to all those who serve the House in whatever capacity. A special vote of thanks is due to those members of the staff of the House who, because of where they live, have had to sleep overnight in some part of the Palace of Westminster in what are perhaps not the most luxurious of conditions. Camping out in the Cholmondeley Room and elsewhere on occasion can be quite an adventure but that becomes distinctly uncomfortable when it is a weekly routine. I think that we owe a special vote of thanks to those members of staff who have had to sleep here during that period.
It has been a long hot summer, as the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said. I think we have got through it in reasonably good temper. We have had no all-night sittings, though we sat until 5 a.m. on one occasion.
I should also like to say a special word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who has made matters more enjoyable and more pleasant for many Members of your Lordships' House with his unswerving devotion in ensuring, despite obstacles of all kinds, that a new dining facility should be opened. For a long time that has been known as the NDF. It is now called the Barry Room. It is something that I know your Lordships have appreciated.

1663
The Opposition feel that we have made worthwhile improvements to various pieces of legislation that the Government have brought forward. We should have liked to make more improvements to that legislation. We are sorry that another place did not always agree with what your Lordships proposed.
It remains for me to wish your Lordships a restful Recess to enable noble Lords to return invigorated in the autumn so that we continue our scrutiny and revision of legislation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may join the two noble Lords in the thanks that they have expressed to the staff in all parts of the House. Indeed, the number of people who, during the nights before and after the transport strikes, have been sleeping within the building have given service beyond the call of duty. In that category we must also remember members of the Chief Whip's own staff, to whom we are grateful. We are grateful to the Chief Whip for his benign and cheerful countenance throughout this period, knowing full well that he is a man who never becomes irritated even by people on the other side of the House.
It has been a trying Session. I am sure we all agree that we are glad to be away to the country or to our holidays wherever they may be taking place. At 9 p.m. no doubt the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill will be rapidly dispatched. It is a temptation at that stage to move against it, and to find that there are not enough people to get it through, and the Government would not have any money during the summer. But we shall certainly resist that temptation.
I pay tribute to the Clerks of the House, and the Hansard writers in particular. I remember that recently we had to adjourn the House during pleasure on five occasions one night, finishing at 1.20 in the morning. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I were filling in time by what can only be described as a filibuster. One then remembered that there was a need for Hansard writers to take down our perhaps not altogether serious remarks. Indeed, the Editor of Hansard herself was down here undertaking that task. We are eternally grateful to them not only for the work that they do in the House but for the work that is done in committees, both by the scribes and by the clerks in those committees.
With all those remarks, I am sure that everybody will agree that we are very well served in this House by all the staff. I hope that all noble Lords on all sides of the House will have a refreshing and welcome break during the summer.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers are very happy to be associated with the expressions of thanks that have already been expressed. We are very happy to endorse the congratulations and thanks to our Cross-Bench Refreshment Committee chairman. We especially wish to mention those who refused to be defeated by the rail and other transport strikes and who, despite all the frustrations that must have been aggravated by this hot and very humid weather, were
1664
always there to do their jobs and always there to help us, smiling and with good will. We on the Cross-Benches wish all Peers and staff a trouble-free and very happy Recess with their families.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.55 to 9 p.m.]

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
9 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time; then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time and passed.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.5 to 9.10 p.m.]

Royal Assent
9.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act,

Finance Act,

Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Act,

Representation of the People Act,

Electricity Act,

Dangerous Dogs Act,

Human Organ Transplants Act,

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act,

Extradition Act,

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

Continental Shelf Act,

Associated British Ports (Hull) Act,

London Regional Tansport (No. 2) Act,

Hayle Harbour Act,

Queen Mary and Westfield College Act.

Continental Shelf Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
Extradition Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
Hayle Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned for the Summer Recess at twelve minutes past nine o'clock, until Monday, 9th October next.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  BULGARIA: TURKISH MINORITY
  BULGARIA: TURKISH MINORITY
  ROCKALL: TERRITORIAL SEA LIMIT
  ROCKALL: TERRITORIAL SEA LIMIT
  SPACE STATION
  SPACE STATION
  STANFORD TRAINING AREA
  STANFORD TRAINING AREA
  AWACS OFFSET AGREEMENT
  AWACS OFFSET AGREEMENT
  TECHNICOLOR HOLDINGS UK LTD AND METROCOLOR LTD: MERGER PROPOSAL
  TECHNICOLOR HOLDINGS UK LTD AND METROCOLOR LTD: MERGER PROPOSAL
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: STAFF COSTS
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: STAFF COSTS
  OPTICAL SERVICES AUDIT COMMISSION
  OPTICAL SERVICES AUDIT COMMISSION
  POSTIVELY WOMEN: GRANT APPLICATION
  POSTIVELY WOMEN: GRANT APPLICATION
  KATYN MASSACRE
  KATYN MASSACRE
  HOUSING ACTION TRUST BALLOTS: VOTING ENTITLEMENT
  HOUSING ACTION TRUST BALLOTS: VOTING ENTITLEMENT
  WEST KENNET FARM NEOLITHIC SITE: SCHEDULING
  WEST KENNET FARM NEOLITHIC SITE: SCHEDULING
  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL: REPORT
  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL: REPORT
  CHARITABLE TRUST BENEFICIARIES: ROLE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  CHARITABLE TRUST BENEFICIARIES: ROLE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  DRIVING PROSECUTIONS: EVIDENCE
  DRIVING PROSECUTIONS: EVIDENCE
  COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: PROPOSED REFORM
  COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: PROPOSED REFORM
  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: STAFFING
  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: STAFFING
  US EXTENDED AIR DEFENCE TEST BED: UK COLLABORATION
  US EXTENDED AIR DEFENCE TEST BED: UK COLLABORATION
  "ACTIVE EDGE" NATO EXERCISE
  "ACTIVE EDGE" NATO EXERCISE
  NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK: BANK OF ENGLAND SUPERVISION
  NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK: BANK OF ENGLAND SUPERVISION
  VILLAGE HALLS AND VAT
  VILLAGE HALLS AND VAT
  CTCs AND VAT
  CTCs AND VAT
  POLICE WILDLIFE LIAISON OFFICERS
  POLICE WILDLIFE LIAISON OFFICERS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS
  CENTRAL LONDON TRAFFIC SPEEDS
  CENTRAL LONDON TRAFFIC SPEEDS
  COAL IMPORT
  COAL IMPORT