Sitting of 12 June 1989

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

    Rail Services (Report)
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain a copy of the National Economic Research Association's report on the quality of rail services for his departmental library.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): It already has one.
    Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Secretary of State has a copy of the report sitting on a shelf at home and that he has had an opportunity to read it. If he has, he will be aware that it highlights fewer seats on trains, despite more traffic on the railways and the sort of overcrowding that I experienced travelling from Cornwall to London last night. Many people had to stand from well before Plymouth until they reached London. I experienced, together with many other people, the difficulties of travelling on British Rail at a time when it is underfunded. The report highlights all those problems and calls on the Government to invest in rail, get traffic off the roads, reduce lorry traffic through towns and villages and do something about congestion. Will the Minister act on the report and proceed quickly to ensure safe public transport in this country?
    Mr. Channon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had a difficult journey, and I understand the problems that he raised. Not only do I have a copy of the report at home but I have read it with care and have had a meeting with the trade unions about it. It contains much good stuff; I do not agree with all of it, but I agree with much of it. We are acting on many of the report's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned overcrowding, which I accept sometimes is a problem on some InterCity lines. He will be pleased to learn that I have today approved investment by InterCity in 31 extra mark IV coaches, at a cost of £8·5 million, which will allow electrified trains to run on the east coast main line with more coaches, which will relieve congestion and cascade on to other lines.
    Mr. Adley: As the report to which the question refers relates investment to service, and as we have just finished praying, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the following matters? The statement that he made a few days ago in the House has given road builders a bonanza, with the minimum of research, while British Rail must climb a high hurdle every time it wants to present proposals to my
    538
    right hon. Friend. Will he consider the fact that France builds railways in the prospect of doing business, whereas British Rail must prove in advance—sometimes against all the odds—that it can do the business before it is given investment approval?
    Mr. Channon: Although I have had many talks with my hon. Friend, I have yet to convince him that, whatever the height of the hurdle, British Rail always manages to climb it. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to debating the amount of investment made in British Rail, which we shall deal with in a later question, when I shall show that in real terms investment is considerably larger than at any time under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Anderson: If progress is to be made, is it not important that those who take the key decisions have personal experience of the quality of British Rail? It is said that over the past decade the Prime Minister has travelled on it only once—and only for a short distance. Will the Secretary of State therefore try to persuade her to use British Rail from time to time?
    Mr. Channon: That is all very well. The Prime Minister is keen to support British Rail and has supported its investment programmes, as have the Government collectively. In contrast to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I had an excellent journey on British Rail this morning.

    London Transport
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Transport; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Channon: On Thursday 8 June, at a meeting of my London passenger transport group, which discussed the central and east London rail studies.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-suffering commuters of London will have no sympathy for a strike over the retention of a promotion system based on Buggins' turn rather than ability? Does he agree that a wage claim of £3,000 a year is quite extraordinary and unjustified? Does he agree that common sense rather than greed and avarice should be the guiding light of London Transport?
    Mr. Channon: I agree that prolonged industrial troubles on the London Underground are extremely damaging to travellers. They will not help to resolve the problems, and the House should urge that there should not be such industrial action.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that a sad lack of common sense is being displayed by the management of London Underground, who seem to believe that the way to improve the service is to price as many passengers off it as possible? Is that sensible or far-seeing management? What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage management to improve the service?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Lady knows that a question on the central London rail study has been tabled, and we shall deal with it soon.
    Mr. Prescott: That is nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman says that it has nothing to do with it. I am about to answer the hon. Lady's question.
    Mr. Snape: Get on with it, then.
    Mr. Channon: It is not easy with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) sitting there. I have received no proposals on fares from LRT. I understand that it is concerned, rightly, about safety and congestion. I have already approved more than £200 million investment in safety measures and £700 million investment to improve the Central and Northern lines. I would have to hear convincing arguments from LUL before I agreed to pricing people off the Underground.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport about the way in which traffic cones seem to be breeding in central London as well as on motorways? Yesterday, they were fouling up the approaches to the A40. Will my right hon. Friend open a hotline so that members of the public can point out where traffic cones have been left in places unnecessarily, simply because someone has been too lazy to move them out of the way?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider my right hon. Friend's comment. I am not sure that it is a matter for the chairman of London Regional Transport, but I shall certainly get in touch with my right hon. Friend about those cones.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept, as no doubt the chief secretary will do in the future, that the fare increases on the Underground system, which, since 1980, have been three times higher than inflation, result directly from his policy that all costs should be covered by fares? That is the opposite of the position in Europe which, with a public subsidy system, has produced the better quality service and cheaper fares that are so different from the London system, which is a shame to us.
    Mr. Channon: I do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said. Investment in London Underground is increasing continually and is running at historically high levels—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]. I am entitled to answer in the way that I want. I do not agree that the fares are higher in real terms than they were some years ago. The hon. Gentleman's question is based upon a misapprehension.
    Mr. Hanley: The majority of people in London believe that the answer to London's traffic problems lies mainly in improved services, and the Underground plays a large part in that. In his discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, because of the great demand on services, London Underground will provide more and longer trains as soon as possible?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. He will be extremely pleased to know of the enormous increase in investment in London Underground, which is running, in 1988–89 prices, at £284 million a year. When the Labour party and the GLC had control of it, investment was less than half that level.

    London Underground (Automatic Barriers)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about ticket barriers on the London Underground system.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I understand that a report from the independent consultants on the working of the Underground ticketing system is expected shortly.
    Mr. Banks: Will the young and up-and-coming Minister please explain to me how London Underground Limited can carry on installing ticket gates when virtually no one in London approves of them? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the chaos at, for example, Westminster Underground station, where the authorities have to lock the gates open because of the pressure of people? Will he please call in London Underground to tell it to stop this ridiculous scheme which, I remind him, would never have been allowed under the good old GLC?
    Mr. Portillo: I have considered the problems of congestion in a number of our stations. I do not think that the ticketing system is the main contributor. There are other reasons for the congestion. The railway inspectorate and the fire brigade have looked at the gates. We have asked consultants to look at them, and their report will be available shortly. The hon. Gentleman often urges us to adopt the systems that operate abroad. I point out that gates at exits are to be found in Hong Kong, Singapore, Washington, San Francisco, Seoul, Philadelphia, Illinois, Tokyo, Osaka and on the Paris RER.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend undertake not to return to the old days of the GLC, which doubled the fares and doubled the rates in 1981? Will he give Londoners an assurance on the effect of these gates in a fire?
    Mr. Portillo: That has been the subject of the study by the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade. Emergency buttons are positioned in various places where the staff can operate them, so that all the gates fly open. Recently, the Underground has checked that in the event of a power failure—even a single-phase power failure—the gates would open automatically. That is the basis on which the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade have felt confident in approving those systems.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister look a the chaos that all too frequently occurs at Gatwick airport, where passengers from airlines find it almost impossible to purchase a ticket? Is the Minister aware that late at night, only one window out of eight—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady mean Gatwick underground?
    Mrs. Clwyd: I am talking about passengers attempting to get on to the Underground from the airlines.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very wide of the question.

    Central London Rail Study
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made a decision about the options contained in the central London rail study; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: Not yet, but I hope to do so later in the year.
    Mr. Livingstone: The Secretary of State expressed regret that the rail study did not make reference to the north London line, a vital part of the London transport network. Will he exert whatever pressure he can on British Rail to prevent the closure of Primrose Hill station, which will throw further pressure on to London Transport because it is British Rail's clear intention now to reduce the number of trains running on the Watford line to Liverpool Street, from live an hour to one an hour? How can the Secretary of State justify that, given the present congestion on the Tube?
    Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we are considering carefully all the options contained in the central London rail study, which presents some imaginative and important proposals for improving London's transport in the future. The question of the north London line is being considered carefully, as it relates also to the east London rail study. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's later points. In general, we are now engaged in some of the most important and radical suggestions to try to solve London's traffic and Underground problems over the next couple of decades.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these massive plans will be vulnerable to excessive delays because of their complexity? Will he reassure the House that we shall proceed rapidly with the proposals, because we could have endless arguments about all the different options? Can we get digging as soon as possible?
    Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's support for the proposals. My aim is to come to conclusions in the very near future—or nearish future—and to come to the House, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), with definite proposals later this year.
    Ms. Ruddock: May we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, therefore, that he is denying the reports which have already appeared in the press that he has made decisions? Will he tell the House about the shape and finance of London's new rail links? Will he tell us whether he has authorised British Rail and LRT to prepare a private Bill? Most important of all, will he give us some idea of the cost of the Paddington to Liverpool Street line and the level of fares increases that will be necessary if he continues to insist that the passengers must pay?
    Mr. Channon: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, no decisions have been taken. It will be very nice if it is possible—and I hope that it will be—to have a Bill in November dealing with one of the solutions to the problem, although it is impossible to be certain at this stage. No decisions have been taken, so I cannot instruct people on these matters. The hon. Lady mentioned fares. The question of financing whatever proposals come forward has to be studied. Fares will have to play their part. There is also the option of Government grants and of contributions from developers.

    Drink-Driving
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for tackling the problem of drinking and driving.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We have today launched a new campaign, with the help and co-operation of the medical services, the police, the insurance industry and the brewers and retailers. Two new television commercials will be shown. New posters and publicity material are available for use by road safety officers throughout the country. The basic message continues to be that drinking and driving wrecks lives and that it is unnecessary and unacceptable.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if other insurance companies follow the line recently taken by Pearl Assurance, motorists who insist on continuing to drink before they drive will find that they are likely to face a nasty financial shock, even if they do not kill or disable somebody?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has a good point. At the moment an insurance company does not need to pay out for those who drive unroadworthy vehicles. Pearl Assurance has simply applied the same principle to those who are not roadworthy drivers. The company will not necessarily pay out to mend such a driver's car and may claim back any third party payments that it has to make. I do not see any reason why the 19 out of 20 of us who do not drink and drive should have to continue to subsidise those who do. We are sufficiently at risk of our lives as innocent victims and I do not see why we should pay out money as well.
    Sir Dudley Smith: While every sensible person must he against drinking and driving, is it not correct that we have a good record compared with other European countries, thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend's Department?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is certainly true that the campaigns initiated over the years by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have paid off tremendously in saving lives. The death trend in Britain is very much better than, for example, in Finland or even New South Wales, which go in for other strategies.
    We must change people's understanding and their behaviour, using allies in the drinks trade, so that wherever people go to drink, they can have alcohol-free drinks if they are driving. That is the host's responsibility. It is the passenger's responsibility to pick an alcohol-free driver and it is primarily the driver's responsibility to decide between the throttle and the bottle. The trouble is that even at the present reduced levels, the killing season is now with us.

    Public Inquiries
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to improve the system of transport public inquiries.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The public inquiry system is kept under review. All suggestions for change are given careful consideration. We are satisfied that for the great majority of road proposals the present inquiry system works well. We need to safeguard the rights of those affected by our proposals.
    Mr. Baldry: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat disappointed by that reply because, as my hon. Friend must be aware, it took some 30 years from Ernest

    543
    Marples promising that the Banbury bypass would be built as a matter of priority for substantial construction on the M40 to begin? Will my hon. Friend take a Genghis Khan approach to the public inquiry system to simplify it substantially, to shorten it and to shut up those professional objectors who are in the vanguard in calling for infrastructure investment in general but who seem to oppose every infrastructure investment in particular?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answer is that I am not sure. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need to save time before we get to the inquiry stage. Three quarters of inquiries take two weeks or less and consider people's legitimate interests. However, time is wasted by the Department in trying to find an acceptable route. Where there is controversy—with the exception of Worthing—perhaps one way would be for people to decide whether they want the bypass—if there is to be one—to run east, west, north or south before the Department commits too much time to fighting fruitless battles. We need to fight for people's interests in a safer environment, with safer roads, and better industrial access. Perhaps then, as my hon. Friend wants, we could save a great deal of time.
    Mr. Allen: What is the Minister's view on the circumventing of public inquiries into major transport matters by the use of the private Bill procedure in this House? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friends to ensure that in future all major transport issues are examined publicly so that all witnesses can give the evidence that they feel is appropriate?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is odd that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that having a matter considered by the House of Commons is in some way to get away from a public inquiry. That is the way in which most of the railways have been built in this country and it is the way in which most people would like them to continue to be built.
    Mr. Madel: Does the White Paper on roads take account of the expenditure implications of any delays in the construction of bypasses caused by lengthy controversial public inquiries, because every month of delay has an inflationary effect on the final bill?
    Mr. Bottomley: It should not, as inflation comes down again. The important point is that we do not want to lose any time unnecessarily. Each pound spent on the roads brings a £2 return and we are getting a return of about £160 million per year from the present road programme in road casualty reductions alone. Therefore, as my hon. Friend has said, it is important that we get on with the programme.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are seriously considering replacing roads public inquiries by the private Bill procedure of this House to avoid giving people the opportunity of having their views heard? As the Minister is concerned about delays, will he confirm that the Birmingham northern relief road has now been delayed directly because of the Green Paper on private financing and that, instead of getting their road, the people of that area now face the possibility of a toll road?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answers to the two specific questions on the inquiry are no, and not necessarily. The only person who has suggested the use of Bills for a large number of road schemes is the director of Friends of the
    544
    Earth. I was not persuaded by him and I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
    Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend's announcement later this week of alternative proposals for the Hastings, western and Bexhill bypass will be a welcome sign of further progress on the Dover to Honiton trunk road link. However, if a public inquiry follows the eventual publication of draft orders, when does my hon. Friend imagine the road will be complete?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answer to that is NIMTOO—not in my term of office—although we want to make as much progress as we can.

    Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of a rail link to Manchester airport.
    Mr. Portillo: We expect to receive a formal investment proposal from British Rail shortly.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that there appears to have been a last-minute financial hiccup in the negotiations between the Department and the Greater Manchester transport authority in the past couple of weeks? Can he confirm that the problems have now been smoothed out and that there is nothing to stop the construction of the rail link going ahead later this year?
    Mr. Portillo: I must wait and see what British Rail's investment case is. The hon. Gentleman may have been referring to the question of resource allocation for the PTA share of the cost in the next financial year. I am happy to agree in principle that the allocation should be covered. The hon. Gentleman asked about timing. I am well aware that if the rail link is to be built, it should be phased in carefully with the new terminal, which is due to open in April 1993.
    Mr. Eastham: May I impress on the Minister the fact that Manchester airport has been applying for the rail link for the past 10 years? I hope that the Minister will make it clear to British Rail that we want no more unnecessary delays. Given the money that has been spent on Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow, is it not about time that the north-west had its share of expenditure?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not think that the time spent in establishing the case has been wasted in any way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take comfort from what I have said—that it is well understood that the important factor in the timing of the rail link is that it should fit in with the new terminal planned for April 1993. If Ministers receive the investment proposal shortly, we shall be in good time to phase the link in with that.
    Mr. Favell: Is the Minister aware that the car park at Manchester airport is now immensely expensive, especially for the holiday traveller? Does he agree that a rail link would be a great boon to those who save up to go on holiday once a year?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an interesting additional point. I think that the investment case made to

    545
    me by British Rail will be made in the light of all the circumstances, and of all the extra traffic that can be attracted. I look forward to seeing that proposal shortly.

    Midland Rail Electrification
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss an investment plan for the electrification of the midland main line.
    Mr. Portillo: It is for British Rail to propose those electrification schemes which it believes to be worth while.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that people who travel on the line through the east midlands to Nottingham are heartily cheesed off at the Government's attitude to the electrification of the east midlands line? It is a scandal that the Government are prepared to find perhaps£1/2 billion for environmental improvements where they see electoral advantage and yet cannot allow or encourage British Rail to spend a mere £100 million to electrify the line through the east midlands. Will the Minister look again at the rate of return that he has demanded that British Rail should make on its capital and make it more feasible for British Rail to electrify the line? The east midlands needs the line. It needs electrification. Without that, we shall become an economic backwater. It is not good enough for the Government to keep washing their hands of the issue.
    Mr. Portillo: I take it that what the hon. Gentleman really wants is an improved service to Nottingham and Sheffield. We have just had announced an improvement of 10 minutes in the journey time to Nottingham and an increased frequency of service. There is a new 7·30 am train which will doubtless be useful to the hon. Gentleman personally. Following the announcement by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the east coast main line, it may now be possible to transfer trains from that line to the east midlands line to give Nottingham and Sheffield an hourly service.
    Electrification is a separate matter, and it is not likely to bring much of an improvement in journey time. I believe that the question of electrification will arise at a later date, when the line is due for reinvestment. The rolling stock on the present line is well within its working life at the moment.
    Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend will recall that a long debate on this matter was initiated last year by my hon. Friends the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and myself and that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was notably absent from it. We spoke then of the need for electrification in view of the great changes that had taken place, particularly the Toyota plant. Will my hon. Friend undertake to ask the chairman of British Rail to look again at this matter, in the light of the facts that more investment is being made in the east midlands and there is a crying need for investment to provide a direct link via the Channel to France to bring prosperity to the midlands?
    Mr. Portillo: The chairman of British Rail is well aware of my hon. Friend's opinion and those of many of my hon. Friends who have spoken so strongly in favour of electrification. The quality of service is important, not electrification per se. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased
    546
    both with the current improvements and with those that I announced today, which are the result of my right hon. Friend's statement about additional rolling stock.

    British Rail (Privatisation)
    Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about privatisation proposals for British Rail.
    Mr. Channon: Privatisation is one of the topics that I discuss from time to time with Sir Robert Reid.
    Mr. Snape: That was a terrific answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after years of running the railways on a Government-sponsored shoestring, to tell British Rail management that privatisation is the only answer to its problems is creating massive uncertainty within the industry? Is not talk of a return to the large regional railway companies simply nostalgic nonsense? Does not the United Kingdom, like other advanced industrialised nations, need a publicly owned, properly funded national railway system?
    Mr. Channon: As I have told the House on many occasions, we have not decided about privatisation. I welcome British Rail's recent impressive performance, as do many hon. Members, and privatisation could reinforce that. However, I shall pursue that only if I am convinced that it will lead to an improved service to the customer. That is why I have given the hon. Gentleman this answer, I note his views about large regional companies.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pent-up feeling that British Rail should be privatised for the benefit of both rail users and British Rail employees? Would not the employees welcome the opportunity of a share option scheme, something that has been consistently denied to them by the Opposition, and especially those working on the east coast main line? They will be delighted with today's announcement of 31 new coaches, which will mean even greater improvements. The sooner they have them, the better.
    Should not the chairman of British Rail urgently consider the privatisation of certain sectors, including catering and the property board, both of which have been lacklustre?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a great deal of interest in and support for privatisation. There is no evidence from British Rail's performance to support the view that any uncertainty over that issue is causing any damage—
    Mr. Snape: That is why I asked the question.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman did make that point.
    We must decide on the long-term future of the railways without unnecessary delay. I note the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and will bear them in mind.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does Sir Robert Reid say from time to time about the technical feasibility of privatisation?
    Mr. Channon: Sir Robert Reid, not I, should speak for himself on these matters. British Rail is co-operating fully with the work in hand and the board has taken no formal position on privatisation.
    Mr. Redwood: When considering privatisation, will my right hon. Friend take into account the need to make the railways more enterprising and more responsive to growth opportunities? I am thinking especially of the Earley power station site development in my constituency, where a nationalised industry appears to be reluctant to install a station that is much needed. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the ability to go for growth and for new passengers is written into the privatisation proposals?
    Mr. Channon: I shall study what my hon. Friend has said. Most hon. Members, certainly Conservative Members, know that privatisation in a large number of areas has released the initiative and enterprise of many state industries, has provided growth opportunities and is heartily to be desired.

    Road Casualties
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the general trend in road casualty figures.
    Mr. Channon: Casualties in road accidents reached a post-war peak of over 397,000 in 1965. Since then, the trend has generally been downwards. In 1987, the latest year for which full details are available, there were 311,500 casualties. During the same period, the trend for deaths in road accidents has also been downwards, falling from 7,950 in 1965 to 5,125 in 1987.
    Provisional figures for 1988 show a slight upturn in total casualties to 321,700, but road deaths show a continued fall, to an estimated 5,041 in 1988.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many families will be eternally grateful to him for his success in bringing down the number of road deaths, although, naturally, there is still some concern about road casualties? What action is my right hon. Friend taking in respect of the various organisations that have an interest in making representations on his response to the North report?
    Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. My predecessors, my colleagues in the Department and the Department itself have done an immense amount of work on this important topic. In July 1987, I set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000. Traffic is increasing considerably. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the North report. Naturally, we shall carefully consider any representation that has been made to us. We have already received a large number, and we are considering them carefully. We have already been able to take some action about high risk offenders.
    Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one way of combating the road casualty figures is to make sure that motor vehicles are roadworthy. Would he care to comment on the European meeting of Ministers, at which a new tyre directive was devised, and tell us when it is proposed to be introduced?
    Mr. Channon: I thought that my hon. Friend would be pleased about the new tyre directive. I read his powerful
    548
    speech a few days before the European Council meeting. I am not sure whether I am in total agreement with him about the matter, but I think that he will be pleased about the new 1·6 mm tyre tread directive which will come into force in the middle of 1990. If I have that detail wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail about the need for a second Channel tunnel rail terminal at Waterloo in addition to that at King's Cross; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: British Rail has been planning for some years to locate its London terminal for Channel tunnel passenger trains at Waterloo and for it to be in operation by 1993. Powers for that were granted in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. It is now proposing to locate a second London international passenger station at King's Cross.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only reason for such a grandiose arrangement at Waterloo is to accommodate the passport and immigration controls and for the convenience of Customs clearance? Is it not time that the authorities brought their procedures into line with those on the continent, where Customs, passport and immigration controls are done on the train? There would then be no need to have such a grand, expensive development at Waterloo.
    Mr. Portillo: I do not think that my hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that that is the only reason. A large numberof passengers will use the services, and that is why British Rail is having to think about two termini to cope with more than 15 million passengers a year. The Customs clearance matters are not settled. They are still being discussed within the Government. I recognise the force of the argument that, for the convenience of customers, it is much the easiest thing to have the same sort of arrangement as we have at airports, whereby people would carry their suitcases through Customs and clear quickly after they have left their trains.
    Mr. Spearing: Have the Government not made a complete mess of the matter? Is it a fact that British Rail representatives told the Select Commitee that they did not need another terminal other than at Waterloo? We now need one at King's Cross and, apparently, a third one at Waterloo. Is it not time that the Government had a complete strategic survey of the matter to include other sites such as Stratford and show the country that they mean what they say about the planning and transport inquiries on which a question was answered earlier this afternoon?
    Mr. Portillo: I am rather confused by the hon. Gentleman's reference to a third terminal at Waterloo. My understanding is that there is to be a terminal at Waterloo. That is covered in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. The proposal is now for a second terminal at King's Cross. There is no proposal for a third terminal. It is for British Rail to demonstrate whether it should be at King's Cross or at Stratford. During the debates on the King's Cross Bill there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others to consider the important arguments that have been made in favour of King's Cross as against Stratford.

    Drink-Driving
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is spending on drink-drive advertising in the current year.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: About £2 million is being spent on new television commercials, air time, new publicity materials, and support for local road safety officer campaigns. That relatively small sum is multiplied many times by the coverage of the subject in the media, including thoughful television coverage, such as the recent BBC "Horizon" programme, and by reporting of drink-drive cases. The campaign is being heavily supported by material produced by the Brewers Society, by individual brewers and by the club movement.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a vast amount of public money? While I am sure that we would all agree that that is absolutely necessary, does he agree that it is hardly logical? Surely the media in their news bulletins should give as much attention to lives lost through drink-driving as they do to any rail or aeroplane disaster.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is true that, if between 800 and 900 people lost their lives in the air, at sea or on the railways, the media would be concentrating all the time on why and how that happened. If I had had the courage I would have announced this morning that no public money was to be spent on advertising, because then every television programme and newspaper would have to be explaining why drink-driving is so dangerous. I have not such courage.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Advice to Ministers
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North on 8 May, Official Report, column 553, what assessment he had made of the implications for the treatment of documents containing his advice to Ministers and others of the recently revised Cabinet Office guidance on Government information.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None.
    Mr. Dalyell: As one who sat on this Bench and heard Jack Profumo make statements to the House, does the Attorney agree with Harold Macmillan that it is rather important to our system of government that Ministers do not tell lies to the House? In those circumstances, as a major Law Officer of the Crown, what did he think when he heard that Sir Leon Brittan had said that the most intimate advisers to the Prime Minister, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham, had absolutely abused his letter raising question on the Prime Minister's behaviour? Is the senior Law Officer entirely happy in that rather bad company?
    The Attorney-General: As the question began with a premise that I most certainly do not accept, I have nothing that I can usefully add in response to it.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On 7 June. We discussed a variety of matters of Departmental interest.
    Mr. Janner: Did the Minister discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the inability of the law to deal with cases of incitement to racial violence and the likelihood of greater danger as a result of the Rushdie affair? Does he agree that the law is not capable of dealing adequately with such public order offences and that it should be strengthened? Are the Government considering such strengthening?
    The Solicitor-General: Policy is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but basically, no, I do not agree with the premise of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I do not believe that anything that he has put in his question has made it out.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. and learned Friend please discuss with the DPP the implications of the case of Gooch, who was convicted at the Old Bailey of the manslaughter of his wife, my constituent, where the judge said that there was no justification for accepting the plea to manslaughter rather than the charge for which he was brought before the court, namely murder? In cases of that kind, would it not be better for the CPS to clear a reduction from the charge of murder with the trial judge privately beforehand and thus avoid giving the impression in court that the reduction in the charge had been done at the convenience of the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: I shall certainly look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend. It may be useful to say that, against an open question, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could either write a letter or put down a specific question.
    Mr. Fraser: Can the Solicitor-General help us on the question of prior publicity and prosecutions? Does he recall that in December the Attorney-General told the House, in the Father Ryan case, that juries have a "scrupulous disregard" of what they see and hear elsewhere and that the risk of publicity affecting their ability to try a case fairly does not exist? Can he say, first, whether those remarks and those of the Prime Minister applied only to the Ryan case or are they general? Secondly, can he say that there is no doctrine applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that the prior publication of reports, such as the King's Cross report or a Department of Trade and Industry inspector's report, acts as a debarment to a subsequent prosecution? Thirdly, can he tell us why the consideration by the Director of DTI reports is taking so long?
    The Solicitor-General: It would be in rare cases that prior publication became a debarment to prosecution but one must look at each case on its merits. The House will have in mind particular cases in recent weeks, which would obviously have a very different effect from other cases that we have discussed.

    City Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding City fraud; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions for discussions frequently, and plan to continue to do so. Subjects include the handling of fraud cases, whether arising in the City or elewhere. Some cases of serious and complex fraud, however, are now handled by the serious fraud office.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether the Attorney-General or the DPP have a quiet little chuckle to themselves when they meet and discuss things such as City fraud as opposed to laws affecting trade unions? Is it not rather odd that in our society people such as Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon—city fraudsters who got away with £40 million—are not extradited now that five years has elapsed and yet when workers go before the courts, the judges find the appropriate sentences in some old or new law book in order to hammer the railwaymen, the miners, the seafarers and now the dockers? Surely the truth of the matter is that in our society, run by the Tory Government, there is one law for the bosses and City crooks and one for the workers.
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that, yet again, the wish has been the father to the thought. The confusion in the question lies between the ability to extradite from the United States in which we are bound by⁁
    Mr. Skinner: You let them go.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asked a question as well as making a long speech and I am giving him the credit of expecting an answer to it, which I am trying to give.
    In the case of extradition from the United States, we are bound by the provision of the United States extradition law. In the case of prosecution for fraudulent and criminal conduct we are bound by our own provisions. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Lloyd's scandals. He may know, but he did not mention it because it did not suit him, that there is a prosecution now in train against a number of those who have been charged with offences in the course of the Lloyd's scandals. Under the administration of the serious fraud office and the Office of the DPP I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the criminal law is administered without fear or favour, affection of ill will.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he and his fellow Law Officers take such offences extremely seriously? Will he also confirm that they are being dealt with as quickly as they can by the police, because that does not always appear to be the case?
    The Attorney-General: I confirm each of those questions, but the police, of course, are outside my ministerial responsibility. I suggest that the attitude of this Government to serious fraud may be judged by the fact that we have invited Parliament to legislate to introduce the serious fraud office, with unique powers, which have led to cases bring brought to court months and sometimes years earlier than would otherwise have been possible. The House need not accept my word on that, but take the word of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London in
    552
    his most recently published report, in which he paid great tribute to the serious fraud office at the end of its first year of operations.

    Diplomats
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in respect of the prosecution of diplomats.
    The Attorney-General: Individuals enjoying diplomatic immunity may not by law be prosecuted unless there is a waiver of that immunity on behalf of the diplomat's own state. Whether it is appropriate to seek such a waiver is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    The question whether a diplomat should be prosecuted will, subject to waiver, be determined by reference to the code for Crown prosecutors.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Attorney-General aware of the scandal of unpaid parking fines that a number of embassies have been running up? Is it not about time that he asked his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to go for a waiver of diplomatic immunity against those individuals who are persistent offenders? If he cannot obtain a waiver, he should declare them persona non grata, because it is about time that some stern action was taken against those people.
    The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is great public resentment about those who abuse diplomatic status in the way that he has described. Whether a waiver should be applied for has to be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, will be made aware of the hon. Gentleman's feelings.

    EC (Fines)
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a paper outlining the rights of access to United Kingdom courts for individuals and companies which have fines imposed on them by the European Community; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: No, Sir. National courts have no power to review the legality of fines imposed by the European Commission. Individuals and companies who wish to test the legality of such fines, may institute proceedings against the Commission in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
    Mr. Taylor: Could my hon. and learned Friend say whether, as one who believes in justice, he is worried that, under the mergers directive, the European Community can appoint inspectors who can walk into any British company that they think might be affected, obtain access to its premises, demand to see its papers, ask for information on the spot, and if they are not satisfied with the information, impose immediate fines of many tens of thousands of pounds, even per day? Is it not an outrage that, in a country which elieves in democracy and the rule of law, individuals can be fined massive sums, and their only recourse is to go to the European Court, which might actually increase the fines? Are not the Government willing to take seriously the fact that the basis of British law, that

    553
    one should have access to the courts before fines are imposed, is totally undermined both by this directive and one other that preceded it?
    The Solicitor-General: I read my hon. Friend's speech in the recent debate and the answer given on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. From a legal aspect, any such company has a right of recourse to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg.—
    Mr. Taylor: Three years later.
    The Solicitor-General: Whether or not the fine is valid must be decided by the European Court of Justice, to which companies have access. However, the policy matters, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, were those raised in the debate and answered on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Nigeria
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nigeria.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit Nigeria for the next round of United Kingdom-Nigeria bilateral talks. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs my right hon. Friend for Wallasey (Mr. Chalker) will be visiting Nigeria from 25 to 27 June to open an oil and gas seminar.
    I visited Nigeria from 25 to 31 May, to attend the 25th anniversary meetings of the African development bank and fund, to discuss our biliateral aid programme with Nigerian Ministers and to visit technical co-operation projects.
    Mr. Watts: In considering further our bilateral aid programme will my right hon. Friend consider giving priority to increasing the number of training places for Nigerians at United Kingdom educational institutions, including the Thames Valley college in my constituency, which has longstanding connections with Nigeria?
    Mr. Patten: I know how distinguished a record the institution has in providing training for people from other countries. This year, in the United Kingdom, we shall be training about 480 students from Nigeria in one discipline or another, with the help of taxpayers' funds. We hope to increase that figure to 600, or more.
    Mr. Winnick: When the visit to Nigeria takes place, will the British position on current events in China be explained? Will the Minister explain to the Nigerian Government our deep concern over the way in which British citizens involved in the media are being roughed up and subjected to brutal treatment by security thugs in China?
    Mr. Patten: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he introduced that extremely important question on to the Floor of the House. Of course, we make clear our concern about those issues to everyone, and I am sure that the Nigerians are as concerned about them as others. Since I was in China last month, in Tiananmen
    554
    square at the beginning of the demonstrations and hoped, like the rest of the House, for a different outcome, I very much share the concern of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no elephants in Nigeria but that, if there were, he should tell the Nigerian Government that although this Government have taken dramatic and important steps to ban the import of ivory, they have left out one important thing: ivory can be stained by smoking, so the clause that forbids the import of all new ivory should be extended to cover the import of all ivory.
    Mr. Patten: There are many places in which one would not find the elephant, including my hon. Friend's constituency. However, he raises a point of considerable importance. He was right to draw attention to the intitiative taken by my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my noble Friend.
    My hon. Friend will also be aware that we are doing a good deal in Zimbabwe, Kenya and elsewhere to support the strengthening of the institutions in those countries which help to conserve wildlife.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will agree that we should not go wide of the question. To do so is to the detriment of those who have questions lower down the Order Paper.

    African Development Bank
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the annual meeting of the African development bank in Abuja.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I attended, as governor for the United Kingdom, the recent annual meetings of the African development bank and fund in Abuja, Nigeria. The meeting also marked the 25th anniversary of the bank's establishment. We reviewed the bank's policies and programmes and we affirmed the importance of using its resources effectively particularly in view of the difficult challenges facing many African countries. I was asked to give a keynote speech on behalf of the non-regional member countries.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that, in addition to helping the bank to support structural development, he will try to persuade it to do more to protect the African environment?
    Mr. Patten: I very much share my hon. Friend's point of view. In one of the two speeches I made at the bank's meeting I set out our concern about environmental issues. The threat posed to marginal land by population pressure and by environmental degradation is well understood. We know the impact of tropical deforestation. We have therefore launched a significant forestry initiative under the aegis of the tropical forestry action plan, and eight countries in Africa are participating in it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Since there are some elephants left in east and central Africa, will the Minister, when he goes to the meeting, encourage the making of loans to the African countries which are doing their best to try to protect their remaining herds of elephants? What can the hon.

    555
    Gentleman's Department do to support African countries which are taking a highly responsible attitude to the conservation of elephants?
    Mr. Patten: As I said in reply to an earlier question on this subject, we are already providing funds in grant form to help other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, to strengthen their conservation departments, so that not only elephant but other wildlife can be preserved. In Kenya, we have a large programme which we are considering increasing, not least by the provision of capital equipment such as radios and trucks.

    Aid
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The proportion of GNP given in net official development assistance in 1979 was 0·51 per cent. In 1988 it is provisionally estimated at 0·32 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Those are abysmal figures. At a time when the Government have been able to pay back more than £14 billion of Britain's national debt in the past financial year it would have made much more sense if the figures the Minister gave had been at last comparable to the United Nations 0·7 per cent of GNP. That, on top of giving aid to some of these countries to pay off their debts, would have been a much more worthwhile gesture from one of the most developed countries—ours—even though it is run by a Tory Government. Why does not the Minister make amends this time? The Chancellor will tell him that there will be another massive pay-off of the national debt this year. Why does not the Minister ask him for a large proportion of that—say £1 billion—to help Third world countries?
    Mr. Patten: Last year the hon. Gentleman and others criticised me when I announced that our aid/GNP figure had fallen. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so
    556
    reticent with his congratulations now that I have announced that it increased by 14 per cent. in 1988 over 1987. The House will know that, for me, the vital figure is the one for the total volume of our aid programme. I am pleased to say that that is increasing this year over the planned figure for last year by 12 per cent. in cash terms or 7 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal problems for the ratio is the rapid growth in our GNP, and that the figure that developing countries are looking for is the absolute amount that has been put into their countries and on what it is being spent?
    Mr. Patten: Of course my hon. Friend is right. This year we shall spend about £165 million more on our aid programme than was planned to be spent last year. If there were to be a Labour Government—perish the thought—I am sure that they would be able rapidly to increase the aid/GNP proportion because the growth rate would fall like a stone.
    Miss Lestor: If the Minister is looking for some sort of praise, I shall say to him that I am glad that pressure from the Opposition and from the aid lobby in particular has enabled him to make the announcement of the small increase in the amount of GNP devoted to aid. However, it is extremely small and he is well aware that the figure is well below the average for members of the European Community, for which the last figure given was .50 per cent. of GNP. Does he not agree that it is deplorable that not only are we well below standards in the EEC on the provision of clean water, and on consumer protection and employment protection rights, but we are below standard on the provision of aid to the Third world? When will he come to the House and announce a timetable for reaching the UN target of 0·7 per cent.?
    Mr. Patten: I thank the hon. Lady for what I take to have been a bouquet in the earlier part of the question. I am not sure whether the latter part of her question will have ignited the European election campaign to the fever pitch that we all expect by Thursday. Once again I say to the hon. Lady that the figure that I announced for our aid/GNP proportion represents a 14 per cent. increase in 1988 over 1987. It is not without significance that our aid programme this year is 7 per cent. higher in real terms and 12 per cent. higher in cash terms than last year.

Statements
3.31 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you spend time over the weekend trying to get away from the politics of this place and I know that that is difficult for you because you have to get your tackle ready for Monday morning. In view of the efforts that you have been making to keep abreast of events, I have no doubt that you have noticed that there is an almighty row going on between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members ask on points of order, "Mr. Speaker, have you had any request for the Minister for so-and-so to make a statement?" I shall not ask that, but instead ask whether you have hada request from the Prime Minister and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement so that we can hear about the conflicting reports? It is high time that we had it all out in the House from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then you would not have to keep sticking your nose in and watching the goggle box to find out what is going on.
Mr. Speaker: I have had requests neither from the Chancellor nor from the Prime Minister.

Consumer Protection
3.33 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to move,
That this House is of the opinion that government policies have failed to benefit the consumer and have not ensured that the consumer interest is properly taken into account in the run-up to 1992 and the single European market; and calls on the Government to reform and up-date the 1987 Consumer Protection Act, to introduce a new system of labelling of goods in order to provide accurate information on their health, safety and environmental implications, to implement fully the European Economic Community product liability directive and facilitate a speedy adoption of the product safety directive, and to make provision for regular and systematic consultation with consumer organisations on all aspects of 1992 legislation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce for debate a subject of my choice. I feel slightly schizophrenic in that I am raising for debate a subject for which I have Front Bench responsibility, although it is through the private Members' ballot that I have been able to bring forward this subject. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this is a subject for which I have partial Front Bench responsibility, because it is my contention that the Government have failed the consumer, and neglected consumer interests, across the whole range of their Departments and policies. I shall refer to the work of Ministers of several Departments and to how their policies have impinged on the consumer and given the consumer a raw deal.
Not least of the problems, as the motion says, is that the Government have failed to safeguard the consumer from the effects of the opening up of the single Europe market in 1992 and all the legislation that is involved. I make no apology for the fact that this afternoon I shall refer to many of the European issues facing consumers. This is a particularly appropriate time to do so, as we are in the last few days before the European elections. The debate on whether Europe will benefit the consumer and the average citizen of the EEC, as well as what its effects on business will be, are subjects about which we are all rightly concerned.
On many occasions, the Government have claimed that their free market approach to economic policy automatically favours the consumer, offering greater choice and reasonable prices through unfettered competition. This attitude, which can most kindly be described as naive, has come to look more and more untenable during the Government's term of office. I shall aim to show that what is now needed is a considerable improvement in consumer protection and consumer rights, both domestically and via the European Community, including the right of the consumer to be fully informed, the right to be consulted, the right to easy and inexpensive channels of legal redress, improved rights of compensation, and so on.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What makes the hon. Lady say that the European Community is in favour of informing the consumer and giving out information? Is she aware that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 removed origin marking, which was one of the best consumer information services, solely because of an instruction from the EEC? How can she say that that body helps the consumer when the average family in Britain pays an extra £13 a week for its food directly as a result of the EEC?
Ms. Quin: The EEC has had mixed effects on consumers. I shall not be wholly praising the EEC, but nor shall I be wholly condemning it. I shall be picking out the various elements of EEC consumer protection and looking at those examples that need reinforcing. I shall not hesitate to criticise certain aspects of EEC legislation that harm the consumer. It would not be wise to take an oversimplified view of the EEC. I hope that the point that I was making will become clearer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in the debate.
Let us examine some of the recent actions of Government Departments and see what effects they have had on the consumer. One of the main issues, about which we have had several debates and questions, is the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to protect the consumer. That is particularly true of consumers' worries and fears about food quality and safety. While modern farming practice is good at producing the quantity that is needed—in many cases, it goes way beyond that, with the production of large-scale surpluses—there is nevertheless more and more consumer concern about the quality of food and, in particular, about the amount of information the consumer is given about the treatment of food.
Recently, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a question about the use of tecnazene—a chemical that inhibits the sprouting of potatoes, thereby improving their shelf life. Potatoes treated with it are not safe for human consumption for six weeks following the administration of the treatment. The Minister informed me that last year about 20 per cent. of potatoes in Scotland were treated with tecnazene, and that a similar percentage were treated in England and Wales, although figures were not available. Apart from expressing my concern that the Minister did not have the figures available immediately, my principal reaction was that consumers are unaware whether the potatoes that they buy have been so treated. If they were treated, they do not know when that happened or whether the potatoes that they are buying fall within the safety limit.
Much concern has recently been expressed about the use of Alar on apples. Again, consumers have no way of knowing whether the apples that they are buying have been treated.
We are now being told that the Government are likely to permit the irradiation of foodstuffs. I oppose that strongly and believe that we should oppose it within the EEC rather than giving way in advance, which is what we appear to be doing. At the very least, food that has been irradiated should be clearly labelled. That will cause the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food problems because there is no foolproof test to show whether foodstuffs have been irradiated, which is a further reason why the process should be banned until a system of proper testing and labelling is devised.
The Consumers Association is calling for the mandatory labelling of all foodstuffs, and perhaps the Minister will comment on that. One of the failings of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is that agricultural produce is excluded. When the Act was being considered, Labour Members pointed out that defect in the legislation. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is present because he led for the Labour party on that issue.
To many hon. Members, it seems that the prodcer rather than the consumer has the upper hand under the
560
Government's agriculture and food policies. Only through the introduction of an organisation such as the food standards agency, which the Labour party has recently called for, will the balance begin to be redressed.
The activities of other Departments work against the consumers' interests. The most flagrant example is the Government's privatisation programme, especially that of the natural monopolies of water, gas and electricity. From contacts with my constituents and my recent experience gained in canvassing at by-elections, I am aware that, while all those measures are unpopular with the voter, the privatisation of water most enrages consumers. People were especially enraged by the advertising campaign, which told them what they already knew—that they are served by a network of water authorities and that water is delivered to their houses—and the pre-privatisation price rises, which they regard as a massive consumer con.
Most British people are drinking water that falls below EEC standards. Most consumers know that the pressing priority is not selling off water to private interests but investing in the necessary infrastructure and remedial works to ensure that water quality, whether it be drinking or bathing water, is fit to use. I strongly believe that safety and health factors are much more in the consumers' interest than the Government's obsession with privatisation.
The National Consumer Council has pointed to many of the problems facing consumers when having to deal with private monopolies. Page 5 of its publication "In the Absence of Competition" states:
"The monopolist can charge prices higher than the consumer would pay in a competitive market and can therefore make excessive profits."
The publication goes on to argue, rightly, for regulation on prices and quality and for proper penalties whenever there is a failure to abide by whatever system of regulation is agreed. The NCC wishes also to ensure that consumers are compensated for any reduction in quality. Consumers are worried that the Government's determination to please their corporate supporters means that consumers will end up with woefully inadequate safeguards. The pre and sometimes post-privatisation price rises have given us prices for certain utilities that are higher than those of our competitors, so not only consumers but industry is set to lose out in the run-up to 1992. Consumers and users are suffering because of Government actions and failings in other Departments. One example is Britain's transport network, which is crumbling because of lack of investment and a short-termist approach brought about by Government cuts and economies which turn out to be false economies when we consider the nation's long-term needs. Whether it is the decaying London suburban rail network, the lack of infrastructure linking the regions to the Channel tunnel or the chaos through bus deregulation in certain areas such as mine in Tyneside, the consumers as users of the services have to bear the consequences of lack of Government support. There is a lack of Government support not because there is no money available for such badly needed investment but because, through dogma, the Government refuse to spend it.
Mr. Tony Faye: Has the hon. Lady overlooked the massive injection of cash for our road system which was announced only two weeks ago by the Department of Transport?
Ms. Quin: I have not overlooked that. It is a bone of contention in my region in the north-east. We feel that some of the roads in our area that have been in desperate need of upgrading for many years—the Al, particularly north of Newcastle, and the A69, from Newcastle to Hexham—are not getting the cash injection that is needed. People in my region are worried because, although the announcement is welcome in certain areas, we still will not be adequately linked to the Channel tunnel. That injection of cash is nowhere near the amount that is needed if we are to compete properly in 1992.
Under the last Labour Government, there was a Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, headed by a Minister with Cabinet rank. Under the Conservative Administration, consumer affairs have been progressively downgraded, so that it is now the responsibility of a junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. That is an obvious illustration of the lack of importance that the Government attach to consumer affairs. Labour's current policy review again talks about a Cabinet Minister for consumers to protect them and give them rights under Government policies.
The record of the Department of Trade and Industry does not give consumers grounds for confidence that their future is safe in its hands. The Department deals with many matters that are vital to the standards, quality and reliability of the goods we buy. Pricing policy, price indications, weights and measures and labelling are all within the Department's remit. Yet it is clear that when dealing with that variety of issues the Department's instinct is always to come down in favour of voluntary action and self-regulation. Indeed, the Minister is nodding enthusiastically as I say those words.
Self-regulation seems to be the Department's watch-word. Yet consumer organisations and consumers want statutory requirements on standards and labelling that are arrived at independently of any firm or industry which in the normal commercial way has a vested interest in persuading consumers to buy its goods. The consumer wants independent and impartial information, but the Government are consistently failing to provide it.
There was great disappointment, for example, about the Goverment's action on misleading price indications, because the code was not given the full statutory backing which many would have liked. Another issue that has come to the House's attention recently is the system of determining the accuracy of weights and measures. Here, too, the Government seem intent on ignoring consumer protestations. As hon. Members will know, a private Member's Bill—the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill—is currently before the House. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs has declared his support for the Bill, although it represents the abandonment of a previous all-party agreement on how to change the weights and measures system. The all-party agreement was embodied in the recommendations of the Eden committee, which met three or four years ago. The committee recommended self-verification of weighing machines in certain circumstances only because the safeguards included were acceptable to industry, consumers and local authority trading standards officers.
The Bill was drafted only after consultation with industry. The Bill's promoter has, rightly, declared an interest, in that he is consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers. Although he has subsequently tabled some amendments, the Bill is
562
still unsatisfactory to consumer organisations, which rightly feel that it was the Government's job—which they were committed to do—to bring forward the recom-mendations of the Eden committee, which were agreed by all parties, in the appropriate legislative form.
Just today I have seen a report that self-regulation and the voluntary approach are to be extended to estate agents and that a voluntary code of practice is being suggested. One newspaper reports that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has said that he will be calling for a statutory code. If he does so, he will have the Opposition's support. We believe that this is an important matter and that neither a voluntary approach nor self-regulation is appropriate. Estate agents should be obliged through legislation to act responsibly towards consumers.
Another example of the Government's obsession with the self-regulatory approach was provided by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he spoke at a recent conference about the increasingly important phenomenon of what has come to be called "green" or "environmentally conscious" consumerism. In responding to the desire of consumer organisations for a proper system of labelling which would give consumers accurate information about the environmental impact of the goods they are buying, he said that, while he understood the desire to introduce environmental labelling, he favoured a voluntary approach.
I should like an environmental labelling system to be introduced as a matter of urgency. The voluntary approach is not the answer. We need a developed form of the West German Blue Angel eco-label, which is independently assessed and in the administration of which consumer organisations and environmental groups, as well as industry, are represented. I believe that that system is funded by industry but that industry is happy to accept the independent recommendations of the body that administers the scheme.
Mr. Favell: Has the hon. Lady observed that environmental labelling is now proving good business to many retailers and manufacturers and that market forces are bringing about what the hon. Lady is requesting at no extra cost to the consumer, whereas if the House were to enact the legislation for which she is calling a vast army would be needed to ensure that each label contained the correct information?
Ms. Quin: The Blue Angel system in West Germany is funded by industry, and does not, therefore, involve Government money. In any case, such a system need not be expensive. I shall be dealing in a few minutes with the hon. Gentleman's point about industry itself becoming more environmentally conscious.
Incidentally, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs did not respond to a question that I put to him during Trade and Industry Question Time not so long ago when I asked him his views on environmental labelling. I hope that he will take the opportunity of giving the House his views on that issue today.
It seems that at last the Government are beginning to realise some of the commercial implications in the important trend towards green consumerism. However, a great deal more needs to be done to encourage industry to respond to the boom in demand for environmentally friendly products. That will be especially important if our

563
"green" consumers are to be able to buy British goods instead of imports from, say, West Germany where green consumerism and industry are more advanced. I need hardly remind the House that we are already running a massive trade deficit with West Germany. Although the Government are beginning such a campaign and industry is starting to respond, I should like more progress. The Government have been prepared to spend many millions of pounds on glossy advertising campaigns in recent years and this is one area in which Government advertising might be welcome.
Consumer organisations are already doing a good job in making consumers aware of the environmental implications of much of what they buy as well as in pointing out the dangers of the pseudo-green claims that manufacturers sometimes make. While I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) that industry is becoming more environmentally minded, I am afraid that there is also some phoney greenery in industry. One can sometimes be tempted to buy a product which claims to be environmentally friendly but which turns out to be wrapped in unfriendly, non-biodegradable packaging. We must take a good, cool and hard look at the claims of many manufacturers to be environmentally sensitive, because theyare not always what they seem.
I am glad that there is also growth in the setting up of consumer organisations specifically to highlight environmental concerns and the need to promote green and socially responsible consumerism. I refer to the valuable work of the Women's Environmental Network, which recently produced a good report on dioxins, and to its campaign to encourage the production of chlorine-free paper products.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On that important point, and taking up the earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems is that the Government's reaction tends to be that if the market will bear the offer of a choice of dioxin-free produce, so be it, but that they are not prepared to intervene to ensure that that choice is made available? Is not that the fundamental difference between the Government's philosophy and what consumers really want?
Ms. Quin: I agree that that is exactly what is happening, although it is not just to help consumers and consumer organisations but because there is a vital need to protect the environment that we should be taking more interventionist action than most of us would otherwise like.
New Consumer, an organisation whose headquarters are in Newcastle, is doing research into the environmental and social implications of many of the goods and services that are currently being provided. I think that I am right in saying that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 had to be put on to the statute book rather hastily in time for the general election, and Labour Members criticised it at the time as far too weak. It already needs strengthening and updating, in line with some of the difficulties experienced by consumers since it was passed and some of the new developments, particularly the environmental developments that I have described. Better labelling is a key factor,
564
but it is also clear that EEC legislation will be increasingly relevant, and I shall refer in more detail to EEC matters later in my speech.
The consumer also needs much easier and cheaper access to legal redress. Hon. Members may remember the recent case of two sisters who were accused of shoplifting by Tesco. Although in the end they were pronounced completely innocent, they faced ruinous costs. An improvement in the legal aid arrangements is vital for consumers.
We also need a proper statutory code of advertising practice and proper powers to order the correction of misleading advertisements. That would certainly help to counter the many misleading advertisements that appear in newspapers in which loan sharks offer people easy credit without explaining to them that there is a catch, or displaying the rates of interest that they will have to pay.
As I said, agricultural produce and unprocessed foods will also need to be brought within the Act.
There are other anomalies. The Food and Drugs Act 1955 does not cover microwaved or cook-chill food. That is not surprising, but both have recently caused outbreaks of food poisoning and they should be covered.
It would be nice if the Government would announce today their help and support for the establishment of a proper, comprehensive, nationwide network of consumer advice centres. The citizens advice bureaux and many specialised advice agencies do a terrific job, as I know from my contact with them, but I am perturbed by the fact that the network of local authority consumer advice centres has been cut, largely because of the Government-imposed economies that local authorities have had to make. I am even more perturbed to learn that the Government do not even seem to keep centrally the figures relating to the number of local authority consumer advice centres or information about where they are to be found. That lack of figures was made clear in an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
Some excellent consumer advice centres disappeared when the Government abolished the metropolitan county councils. That was certainly the case in Tyne and Wear, where the Tyne and Wear consumer advice centre did a very good job. The result of all these cuts is that there is now patchy provision of consumer advice, with certain regions clearly under-served. I am glad that the Labour party's proposals in recent policy documents would rectify that deficiency.
The Government should closely examine the so-called lemon laws in the United States because its consumer protection legislation could teach us a great deal. It is difficult for people in Britain to get defective goods replaced or to obtain adequate compensation. Years after the problems were first highlighted, there are still far too many cases of, for example, substandard cars being sold and then purchasers having tremendous difficulty in obtaining compensation or a replacement vehicles. There are also far too many examples of poor garage servicing, with cars sometimes being delivered back to their owners in conditions that might endanger them and even other road users.
Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Lady made a valid point about the difficulty of maintaining good consumer standards because of scarce resources in many local

565
authorities. Will she pay tribute to the local authorities' co-ordinating body on trading standards? I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister takes his responsibilities seriously —for example, he has made resources available to tackle the problem of flammability of upholstery. However, it would be ridiculous for every local authority to carry out that exercise when it could be co-ordinated by one or two local authorities. It is therefore right that proper co-ordination is acknowledged.
Ms. Quin: I am happy to acknowledge the importance of proper co-ordination and also the good work of the Association of Trading Standards Officers. However, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I do not agree with all of his remarks. It is astonishing that the Government are no longer even informed about the remaining number of local authority advice centres. They have not carried out a study to determine the areas where consumers need a resumption of that service.
I wish to refer to other issues which consumer organisations have raised directly with me and which I hope the Minister will consider. The Consumers Association is concerned about the lack of an adequate certification scheme for gas equipment. Before British Gas was privatised, it had to approve all domestic gas appliances to ensure that they met the appropriate British standard. As, in theory, British Gas is no longer a monopoly, there is no longer any requirement for such items as gas-fired boilers and heaters to meet any particular standard, although I understand that gas cookers are covered by some regulations. The Commission in Brussels has issued a directive that all British gas appliances must meet safety requirements, but the responsibility for that rests solely with the manufacturer as there is no requirement for independent verification. That is another example why we believe that the self-regulatory and voluntary approach is not appropriate.
The Consumers Association is also concerned about the wiring of electric plugs on home appliances. Like most consumers, I am annoyed that I have to buy a plug separately from an electric appliance. Legislation is necessary to ensure that consumers can buy appliances that are already fitted with plugs. Because of the great variety of prices for goods, without legislation consumers may still buy the appliances and plugs separately if that makes the total purchase less expensive. A survey by Which? highlighted th problem of consumers not knowing how to wire plugs correctly, which could lead to accidents.
In the latter part of my speech I will deal with consumer affairs within the EEC and, in particular, the consequence for British consumers arising from the opening of the single European market in 1992. Recently the Consumers Association and the London-based Consumers in the European Community Group produced interesting research and literature on the consumer in 1992. The publications of those bodies made important recommendations to the Government and to European institutions. I hope that, by now, the Minister has read them. When I referred to them at the last Department of Trade and Industry Question Time, he said that he had not read them. They are essential reading for many people, even before European election day on Thursday.
A Department of Trade and Industry press release refers to a speech that the Minister made before the Scottish Consumer Council. It states that the Minister
566
"dismissed criticisms that the Government neglected consumers in planning for the Single Market in 1992.
'Nothing could be further from the truth. We recognise the Single Market is everything to do with consumers.'
Mr. Forth explained that the Government's awareness campaign was deliberately targeted at businesses because it was they who needed to gear themselves up for change, whereas consumers do not have to make special plans."
However, consumers certainly need to be aware of all the decisions being made in the run-up to 1992. I am sure that they wish to know whether their interests will be safeguarded. Consumer organisations certainly need to be geared up just as much as industry does, because they have the job of advising their members and the general public about legislative changes and changes that must be introduced if the consumer is to have adequate protection.
In his press release, the Minister went on to say that he wanted to explode three myths. The first concerned the statement:
"the Single Market will not result in lower safety standards."
The second related to the statement:
"Furthermore, the UK will continue to negotiate to ensure that the harmonised European standards take place at the higher end of the spectrum—levelling up and not down."
There is a certain inconsistency in those two myths. If it is true that standards are not to be endangered, why is it so important to negotiate to ensure that they are riot so endangered? The negotiations are important, and the results will determine whether standards are to be reduced or raised as we hope.
On 1 June, the Minister attended a meeting of the EEC Consumers Affairs Council. Given all the EEC directives that have already been agreed and those that are currently under negotiation and affect the consumer, the agenda for that meeting could have been endless. However, in answer to one of his hon. Friends at Question Time, the Minister seemed to say that such meetings were rather pointless and infrequent. None the less, some positive gains seem to have been made by the meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): It is important that the House understands that the setting of agendas and the frequency of the meetings, as the hon. Lady probably knows better than any other hon. Member, are entirely for the presidency. The Spanish presidency chose to wait this length of time before having a meeting. The Greek presidency immediately beforehand did not choose to have a meeting with the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that.
Ms. Quin: I accept partly what the Minister has said, but, given the number of directives that directly affect the consumer, I wonder whether he will now be arguing for more frequent meetings of the EEC Consumer Affairs Council than has been the case.
Some gains appear to have been made at the meeting, notably the joint position agreed by the Council of Ministers on a common system for calculating the annual percentage rate of interest under the consumer credits directive, which I welcome. However, other developments at the meeting give rise for concern. I understand that the draft directive on package travel was raised by the European Commission, but that the United Kingdom Minister was strongly opposed to the directive, even though all consumer organisations to which I have spoken are very much in favour of it, as it offers better protection for the consumer than anything at present.

567
I remind the Minister that it was not only Labour but Conservative Members of the European Parliament who, in the European Parliament supported amendments which in certain cases strengthened the directive for the benefit of the consumer. However, perhaps that is just another area where there are disagreements within the Conservative party over European issues. There certainly appears to have been a difference of view on that issue between Conservative Members of the European Parliament and the attitude adopted by the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Lady is talking about differences of view apparently within the Conservative party on the future of the European Community. Will she confirm that the former leader of the European Parliament Labour group said:
"It is obvious the Common Market is utterly incapable of reforming itself. The sooner Britain gets out the better"?
He said that in 1987, and that is perhaps why he was sacked from that job. However, the new leader said:
"The Common Market … has been a disaster for British people."
Does that go along with the pro-European flavour that the Labour party is pretending to give to the British people?
Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has used the labels loosely. I do not know whether he was here when I responded to an earlier intervention, when I said that in my speech I would be criticising certain aspects of the EEC and praising others. I believe that there is a mixture of good and bad, certainly in consumer protection. If we want to widen the debate to talk about the state of the major parties as we approach the Euopean election, I would say that the Labour party is in much better shape to fight that election, and has been much more united that the Conservative party has been during recent weeks.
Will the Minister continue to oppose the draft directive on package travel? If so, will he take national action to prevent tour operators from continuing to breach the code of the Association of British Travel Agents? The breaches of that code were highlighted recently in a report from the Office of Fair Trading. I note that the Minister said something recently about the creation of a holiday ombudsman. While I see the need for someone in authority to follow up the many complaints about package travel, I do not believe that that will in any way contradict the need for an EEC directive in the form that will most benefit consumers.
At the EEC Consumer Affairs Council on 1 June there was a worrying lack of agreement on the general resolution covering consumer protection and 1992. I have been told that our Minister was in a minority of one in disagreement on an issue which centred on EEC rules on the safety and quality of consumer products. The British view was said to mystify the other member states, in that the Minister made no attempt to find a solution that would have allowed an overall agreement. As usual, we have managed to antagonise the other member states without having achieved anything in return. Perhaps the Minister will tell us by what steps he proposes to reach agreement at the next meeting of the Council on that issue.
At the meeting the priority to be given to consumer education was also discussed. Apparently, Ministers do not disagree about the necessity for some system of
568
consumer education within the member countries, but I wonder whether the Government's recent refusal to countenance the use of the Lingua programme in schools will signify a similarly negative approach to consumer education. I believe that the better informed and educated consumers are, the better that is for our society.
There are other EEC-related issues to which I shall refer briefly. The product liability directive was agreed and is already in force, but it has not been satisfactorily implemented in the United Kingdom to the full advantage of the consumer. The development risks defence, which was a contentious issue at the time of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, has proved to be a problem in relation to the United Kingdom's implementation of that directive.
The United Kingdom should work determinedly for the adoption of a product safety directive which would underpin many of the agreements on standards and so on set within the EEC as part of the 1992 programme. Without a directive such agreements on standards will be unsatisfactory.
The current EEC standards and those to be adopted on a range of consumer products also raise different issues. I shall not go into details, but there is concern among consumers in this country about the standards relating to refrigerators—that is particularly important because of recent worries about food—cooker surface temperatures, electric room heaters, spin extractors, ultra-violet skin treatment appliances, hedge trimmers, chain saws and so on. A tremendous variety of goods and products are part of the discussions on the harmonisation of standards in 1992. The list of issues related to consumer protection is long, but the conclusion is obvious. In all the regulations and the negotiations on safety standards, those standards should be set at the highest level.
Mr. Favell: We are living in a fast changing world. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the EEC should set standards for every product on the market now or in the future? If so, she is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It is impossible for every product to be examined and a standard set before its manufacture and retail.
Ms. Quin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a more general system for standardisation has already been agreed in Europe. Within that general system one must try to ensure that the standards are as high as possible. That need also reinforces my earlier point about the need for a product safety directive to underpin many of the broader agreements on standards that have been reached.
The EEC cannot simply be about a Europe open for business; it must be about consumers and society. The Community must benefit all citizens within Britain and Europe. The Government may protest that they are concerned to see standards for consumers set as high as possible, but the Government's opposition to recent EEC initiatives to improve the health and safety of workers is well known. I believe that the health and safety of consumers cannot be anything but a related issue.
The organisations concerned with the well-being of the consumer need to be consulted more about all aspects of 1992 legislation. The Consumers Association and the consumers of the European Community group made that point strongly recently. Consumers must be formally involved in the European standard-making process. From

569
contact with the European institutions, many of us know that many of the EEC decisions are taken by officials behind closed doors. Therefore, it can be extremely difficult for consumer organisations and others to have an adequate input in such decisions.
We are all consumers, and when talking about consumer protection and rights we are talking about something which is vital to a civilised society in which commercial forces operate for the general good, not to the public detriment. Therefore, concern for the consumer is an essential part of concern for society as a whole. Given this Government's record, I do not think it will surprise anyone that it will become increasingly clear that the Labour party is the natural ally of the consumer, to which the consumer will increasingly look in the future.
4.25 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I shall comment on one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), and address one or two agricultural issues. In doing so, I declare an interest to the House because I am the parliamentary adviser to the Produce Packaging and Marketing Association.
In Committee, we had an interesting debate on a European directive on product labelling in the produce industry. We raised issues such as Alar and the other chemicals which the hon. Lady mentioned. The controversy surrounding Alar is a classic example of how information emanating from the consumer industry in the United States, where there were clearly differences of opinion about whether Alar was as bad as one group said, was suddenly picked up by the consumer body here and led to a major scare. When it examined the scientific evidence which lay behind the scare, our own committee on pesticides, which is an independent body with no commercial or Government connections other than the fact that it reports to a Government Department, found no scientific evidence for banning Alar for the treatment of fruit.
The debate did not go on to expose the wider issue of the benefit to the consumer of using Alar. It ensures that apples stay on trees and do not fall off too early and means that the consumer is not presented with a poor quality, bruised fruit which may have other disadvantageous aspects. A hint of a problem is seized on without scientific evidence and promulgated as a new gospel. The scientific evidence surrounding Alar suggested that, for an individual to obtain the same level of input of Alar as did the mouse with the tumours, he or she would have to eat 25,000 times the normal human consumption of apples. I cite that as an example to show that realistic and scientific evidence must lie behind our discussion of many of these consumer issues.
Consumerism touches on the important issue of information. Often, when a consumer has to make a choice about goods, he or she has to fight a battle against ignorance. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East was strong on solutions, but weak on how we could improve the information flow to the consumer. She also gave the impression that we have little consumer protection and that what there is is utterly ineffective. She made it sound as if we were standing at the abyss of consumer abuse, and that she, on behalf of the Opposition, had all the solutions. That is palpably not true.
570
I have looked for facts and figures to aid me on the subject of information. An article in The Sunday Times of 6 November 1988 showed that:
"According to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) 40 per cent. of people in the sample of 2,000 did not know the seller is responsible for correcting matters if, say, an electric kettle does not work."
If we are still at the basic stage of educating the consumer about his or her rights under existing law, I see little hope for the panopoly of legislation suggested by the Opposition in this debate as a solution to the mind-boggling range of problems before us.
Mr. Frank Cook: The consumer's fault.
Mr. Jack: I am not blaming the consumer for this. I am pointing out that one of the key aspects in any consumer transaction is information. Even if European directives or regulations covered every item mentioned by the hon. Lady, could we say with confidence that the consumer would quickly become aware of them and act on them? A short time ago, in November 1988, 40 per cent. of a large sample did not know their basic consumer rights, so I doubt whether a lot of new legislation would take us any further forward.
I note also that the present consumer legislation ventures into the realms of second-hand goods. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 deals with that point. Many of us have received letters from our constituents complaining about defects in products that they have bought, especially second-hand products, yet the Sale of Goods Act already protects people in this respect.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Would it not have been better if the Government had spent millions of pounds on advertising on television and explaining consumers' rights instead of publicising the privatisations of the water and electricity industries in the past few weeks?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman might have made a more telling point if he had paid tribute to the £50 million that the Government put into trading standards and the £8 million grant-in-aid that the Department of Trade and Industry gives to the citizens advice bureaux. So it is not true to say that we are not meeting our financial responsibilities to look after the consumer. The Securities and Investments Board has produced a video and booklet discussing its own affairs.
It can be seen from these examples that consumerism is a complicated business. It covers every sort of purchase of goods or services, and it takes a lot of effort to get through the basics that we already have. I fear for what may happen if the line adopted by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East is pursued; we shall have yet another Euro mountain—this time, a paper mountain of ideas that may be well intentioned but are weak when they come to be applied.
I have some limited experience of consumer affairs—at one time I was employed by Marks and Spencer and had to deal with consumers' inquiries. It was interesting to see how even that reputable business encountered the problem, when dealing with consumers, of working out whose the responsibility is when something goes wrong. We had to point out, for example, that inadequate attention to washing instructions on shirts might result in holes appearing in them, and that was not the company's

571
fault. If we take some of the hon. Lady's arguments to their logical conclusion, industry will be made responsible for every fault, which would be wrong.
From the front line of a retail establishment we observe a strong relationship between the price of goods and services and their quality. The Conservative Government can take credit for having increased earnings by record amounts. We have reduced taxation and put more money back in the pocket of the consumer, so that, generally speaking, he can afford a higher standard of goods.
Mr. Allen McKay: Rubbish.
Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had worked in a retail environment as I have, in Marks and Spencer and latterly in the produce industry, he would have clearly understood that we are upgrading. When did he last visit his local Tesco? The range of goods on display there and in Sainsburys has vastly improved in quality compared with a few years ago because people can now aford to pay for quality.
Inherent in the Opposition's argument is the seductive idea that consumers can be safeguarded. People do not like buying goods that fall apart and are inherently poor in quality and safety. They quickly say, "No, that is not for me." They prefer to buy a good branded item that has been proven in service and they buy it from a reputable retailer. In that way, the market place can best serve the consumer in giving adequate consumer protection.
The laws on goods of a merchantable quality start to open the door to ways in which people can obtain redress if poor quality goods are offered. I had an example of this when I bought my wife a handbag which fell to pieces. After much remonstrating with the shopkeeper, I took him to the small claims court and won the action on the ground that the goods were of unmerchantable quality. I know that the existing legislation works and provides good and cheap redress for the consumer who runs into a problem. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East about the expense of the law. The area of the small claim is the one that most often hits the consumer, and it is the area in which the consumer most often seeks protection through the law.
I have been involved in an interesting area of consumer protection. For the past 18 months I have been working with members of the House Builders Federation to produce a code of practice to regulate the area of private sheltered accommodation for the elderly. It deals with a classic consumer problem that started in an industry that was growing rapidly and had growing pains. Its management and sales style led to problems in that people were getting a deal that was not quite the one that they thought they should be getting. Service charges were going up more rapidly than people had anticipated and the quality of the service in the industry was not as good as they had expected.
We worked first with Age Concern to identify the problem more clearly and with the House Builders Federation to produce a code of practice. On 27 June, before the whole of the industry and with the help of the National House-Building Council, we shall launch a voluntary code of practice to regulate some of the excesses in sheltered accommodation. The code will give excellent
572
protection to buyers. We have interlocked that code of practice with the rules and regulations of the National House-Building Council on housing quality. If a house builder does not acknowledge the National House-Building Council rules, he cannot get the "build" mark and without that he cannot sell his house of flat. That cunning interlocking of an existing regulatory mechanism in house building with our code of practice on sheltered accommodation will provide for the first time truly meaningful protection against abuse in that area.
There will be an element of discipline because somebody who buys sheltered accommodation in a development and finds that it is not being run in accordance with the good practice in our code will be able to go to the National House-Building Council which will be able to discipline its members. That discipline puts the house builder in a difficult position, because he may not be able to sell the property that he has built. I put that example before the House because the hon. Member for Gateshead, East condemned any kind of voluntary code of practice. The work that we have carried out in this area and on the many other voluntary codes which are registered by the Office of Fair Trading under the 1987 Act is a useful and effective way to go forward in consumer protection.
In relation to the 1987 Act, I have mentioned our code of practice. One of the key features in the Act is the question of misleading price indicators. That is a valuable addition to our consumer protection law. It means that for the first time in sheltered accommodation people will not be able to make false claims about the way that service charges are likely to go. That is a good example of a piece of general—not specific—legislation that helps a group of consumers. Would those consumers be aware of that protection if it were not for the information emanating from my code of practice? It has generated much newspaper comment, and I pay tribute in particular to The Daily Telegraph which has assiduously followed through on the code. Newspapers have a vital role to play in putting forward such consumer information, because they reach a large number of people and can get the message across quickly and effectively so that people can react accordingly.
It never fails to amaze me that we still have the confidence trickster, or the pressurising salesman. Many consumer problems that we are seeking to address result from such people. We have all heard stories of double-glazing salesmen saying, "If you don't buy today, you will lose your 25 per cent. discount." Those are the main bones of contention, rather than some of the more sophisticated consumer arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
The hon. Lady mentioned the interesting case of the produce industry and Europe. There is already European legislation on common grading standards. All produce sold as class 1 in Europe has to follow these rules and regulations. They are down there, they are agreed to, they are in statute. Has the hon. Lady ever bought a bruised apple, a soft tomato or a flabby lettuce? I imagine that she is honest enough to admit that she may have found such defective produce. However, the EEC grading standards say that such produce should not be sold. The point is that we need good, human input to make the standards work. That is why people such as trading standards officers and Ministry inspectors have an important role to play.

573
Above all, the trust that the buyer and the seller have in one another is what will determine whether rules and regulations are followed through, and followed assiduously. That is the best form of protection for the consumer. It will mean that if leading retailers find that products are not in line with their specifications they will take action straight away. They will not need an inspector. However, the human input is required to make the rules and regulations work. The hon. Lady put forward many specific ideas, but I wonder whether we shall have the resources to make them work. I know that what made our rules and regulations work in the produce industry was our agreement that we wanted to make a high quality product, because if we did not, our customers would not buy it. That is straightforward and simple.
Other common European regulations work to our mutual benefit. The hon. Lady's suggestion that there should be a European statement on safety can be compared with the reality of what happens in the motor industry. Cars have been produced for a long time, so we have construction and use regulations that lay down the technical specifications against which cars can be built. They are highly geared towards producing safe motor cars.
What will happen in 1992 will lead us further down that road, because we shall then have common standards. That is the right way to go, rather than the way in which the hon. Lady is pointing us. Making general statements about safety in a technical sector such as that of motor cars is no substitute for the detailed objectives of our construction and use regulations and the pan-European requirements for cars on, for example, exhaust emissions. Specific and detailed regulations are worthwhile, but general statements tend to be meaningless.
The hon. Lady's speech gave the impression that there is no legislation on safety. I am glad to see that she now shakes her head, because that underpins the point that I am making. In many sectors—for example, motor car manufacture—excellent legislation deals with the consumer protection and safety issues to which she drew the attention of the House.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at a few specific points because no one can claim that consumer protection is perfect. The Consumers Association magazine Which? does an excellent job in highlighting the continuing need for activity, and local citizens advice bureaux are a useful source of information. I work closely with my local office in Lytham St. Annes. It keeps me fully appraised of important factors.
I am concerned about one or two points in particular. One is consumer credit. Many people, perhaps through lack of education and information, take on consumer credit obligations that they later cannot meet. I was disappointed when the previous Minister would not take up an idea that I put to him. It was that everybody, on taking out a consumer credit agreement, would be given a booklet laying down precisely the nature of the agreement that he was taking on and the obligations that it gave him. It is all too easy to get credit from a shop. Those who may not be as financially aware as others suffer when they take on such obligations without due notice of what they have let themselves into. The credit industry could do something like this itself, but to make certain that it does it should be required to give the information to the consumer. Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—but the buyer must be aware to beware.
Mr. Favell: Consumer credit is an issue that exercises all our minds and I regularly come across not only young people but parents who are worried about their children who get into debt. As my hon. Friend will be aware, as an infant, which one is until one is 18, one is not responsible for repaying debts. However, once one has reached the age of 18 and is free to vote and fight for one's country, one is responsible for getting out of debt, if one is in debt. That should be spelt out loud and clear.
Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend. I do not disagree with his solution. However, I am concerned about the question of information, and I should like to see more information made available when people take out credit. There are financial implications and obligations in taking out a life assurance policy, and there is a cooling off period during which one can decide whether the policy is exactly what one wants and one can study the implications of one's signature on the bottom line.
Some interesting things have been said by Opposition Members about guarantees. I notice that in 1986 the Office of Fair Trading estimated that the amount spent by consumers on unsatisfactory goods was £3·5 billion on cars and accessories and £346 million on household appliances. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily by reviewing the question of guarantees, but the Department could do much good for consumers by looking at the terms of guarantees, particularly those that say, "Woodworm treatment: guaranteed for 20 or 25 years." How many companies will be around for such a time to honour long-term guarantees? We all look to guarantees as a reassurance that the product will do the job that it says it will. We should look at the bonding of guarantees, and I know that such a move is supported by the National Consumer Council.
Let me pray in aid of my argument on the general subject of the direction of Community law on consumer protection a speech made by Sir Gordon Borrie which was published in the Journal of Business Law in March 1988. I hope that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East will have a chance to look at it. Sir Gordon says that, originally, the Commission tried to introduce many directives on specific functions, but that they were not taken up very much. He went on to say that the Community developed, in a way that he approved, its approach to more general statements on the subject of consumer law. That is an important observation, by one who sees that as a welcome direction in which the Community should go. It also underlines why the Government are sometimes the odd man out. They see Europe trying to be prescriptive and detailed when what it needs to do is to set the scene, point out the problem and then allow the individual Government, and then the individual state, to solve the problems. The most appropriate and Conservative way of proceeding is to trust the individual, to give him information and to provide him with a framework of protection, which is what the Government have done. I am certain that on Thursday people will take that view rather than agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
4.49 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: May I argue one specific case and cause—the need for a complete and separate department of consumer affairs? About 15 years ago, I was Minister of State for the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. I shall argue for a return to the

575
basic concept but not the form. I shall be relatively non-political, and while I shall criticise the Government I shall also be critical of the period for which I and my colleagues were responsible for consumer protection.
It is important to emphasise a point that tends to be forgotten. Implicit in talk of the consumer society is that the consumer is king. The history of the consumer society has been one of erosion of the consumers' power in the market place and of an increasing need for the Government or, now, the EEC as a sort of continental authority to back up the consumer's diminishing power. Long gone is the day of the local market, when local producers and local sellers knew local buyers and were dependent on their reputations in the local market. At that time, there was parity of status between individuals. By the nature of the highly desirable changes that had to occur if we were to move to the levels of affluence that the western world now enjoys, a market has inevitably evolved in which that relationship altered massively against the power of the consumer. Mass marketing and mass production removed the decision-maker from the purchaser, making it more difficult for consumers to make representations that matter and count.
Some of the new techniques that are used, such as the use of quality control, have led to the market place discovering errors and, if enough pressure is applied, suppliers putting them right. A quality control system that checks one in every 10 products detects a mechanical error in the system, but the converse is that there is a one in 10 chance of discovering an inadvertent human error. Statistically, such human errors pass through the system more than is identified. If a remote marketing company or remote international manufacturer is involved, it is difficult for the consumer to obtain redress.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Is not the remoteness that the right hon. Gentleman is describing covered by the most basic of our Sale of Goods Acts, which allows a consumer who has bought a defective product to return to the local shop where he bought it and demand redress rather than have to try to seek redress from a remote manufacturing company? The process is rather closer to home and easier for the consumer than the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Mr. Williams: It can be as difficult to obtain redress from a mass marketer as it is from a mass producer. I have written many letters to firms that have branches nationally on behalf of my constituents, because sometimes it is very difficult for them to obtain their legal rights. That is not a political point but a reality of the market place.
That problem is exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult for the consumer to know whether he is making a good or bad purchase decision at the time of purchase because of the increasing complexity of products. Domestic appliances are becoming increasingly complex, products such as foodstuffs have increasingly complex additives and there are technical problems with the irradiation of food. The complexity of products makes it more difficult for the consumer to make a considered judgment about the version of a product that he should buy. It is important, therefore, that there is back-up to
576
ensure that if something subsequently goes wrong with a product the consumer can be adequately assured that it will be put right.
The House has had to take action against even reputable international producers, who have not hesitated to use the complexities of the law to shelter from what consumers consider to be their rights. One or two hon. Members who are present today were present when we discussed exclusion clauses. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to guarantees. I well remember the exclusion clauses that we had to make illegal whereby major companies were offering people guarantees that, if they were silly enough to sign and return, removed the rights that they already had at law and conferred on them a lesser set of rights.
The use and type of the market, the nature of products and the increasing sophistication of those who want to protect their selfish interests against those of the consumer have diminished consumers' rights. Further, we are moving increasingly into a credit economy—I shall not make any political points about that, tempting though it is —one of the inevitable effects of which is that if someone makes a mistake they may pay for it long after they are able to get any use from a faulty product.
It is clear that a countervailing force is needed in favour of the consumer. The hon. Member for Fylde referred to Sir Gordon Borrie. I was in the middle of an interview with Shirley Williams to appoint him when I was called out by Jim Callaghan and switched from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to the Department of Industry. Despite the shortcomings of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, for a while it reversed the power balance within Whitehall between the consumer and producer to such an extent that the Confederation of British Industry began to squeal that protection had moved too much in favour of the consumer.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer affairs has found his work fascinating. What I am about to say is not a personal attack on his role, because one must first be an Under-Secretary and then a Minister of State before becoming a Secretary of State. Since the Conservative party came to office, there has been a progressive erosion of the protection for the consumer that was provided in the 1970s. We saw first the abolition of the separate Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and then the subsuming of consumer responsibility within one of the major industrial sponsoring Departments. Within that Department we saw the downgrading of ministerial status so that, instead of the job going to a separate Cabinet Minister, it was given to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Under-Secretaries of State can argue their corners belligerently —I am sure that that is true of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs—but the final say rests with senior Ministers. Those who have been members of the Government know the close relationship that exists in a sponsoring Department between the sponsored industries, their officials and their Ministers. It is difficult for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to win the argument in an enormous Government Department, with a hierarchy of Ministers of State who are responsible for different sectors of the economy and a Secretary of State who believes that 95 per cent. of his responsibility is directed towards industry and commerce.
Mr. Forth: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that important changes have taken place in the Department since he was such a distinguished member of the ministerial team? The sponsoring relationship has been radically changed as well so that there is now, deliberately, no direct involvement by the Department with industries in the way that he may recall from his days in the Department. That may well have changed things greatly in the context of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Williams: I well understand that point. I understand that the sponsoring divisions no longer exist, but an analysis of the work of civil servants within the Department would show that their work time is devoted more to industry and commerce than to consumer interests.
The sponsoring Department even appoints the consumer watchdogs. The Department of Energy, which has a close relationship with the gas, electricity and coal industries, appoints the members of Ofgas. Because of technology investment, the Department of Trade and Industry has a close relationship with British Telecom. It appoints the members of Oftel. That is not to say that Professor Carsberg is not a formidable man and that he will not do a good job, but the person who is responsible for consumer interests is aware that the Minister who decides whether to reappoint him must consider the demand by the industry that his office is intended to monitor.
The hon. Member for Fylde argued a case for self-regulation and I was interested in the instance that he put forward. The reality is, however, that a voluntary code is only as strong as the coverage of the trade association that has underwritten it and that association's will to enforce it. If a trade association covers only 60 per cent. of the suppliers of a particular good or service, another 40 per cent. are outside its scope. That makes it difficult for the trade association to take a tough line with its members, because they are likely to say, "We will do exactly the same. We will go outside."
It is not just that responsibility for consumer protection has been relegated—it is highly fragmented between Departments. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for food standards. Even if we accept that Ministers want to ensure that food is safe and standards are high, the Department is automatically laid open to allegations of whitewash the moment a major case arises and it appears to be dilatory. In terms of self-interest, it makes sense to take those responsibilities from that Department and give them to a separate Minister for Consumer Affairs.
The Treasury is responsible for credit policy. Incongruously, the Department of Employment—a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory}—is responsible for tourism. That is an anomalous allocation of responsibilities. The Department of Energy has responsibility for gas and electricity. The Department of the Environment has water responsibilities. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for safety standards in respect of weights and measures and such large sectors of industry as British Telecom. The Home Office has responsibility for standards in television, radio and the media generally. The Department of Transport has responsibility for consumer interests in relation to those companies that supply ferry, air and rail services. Legal services come within the Lord Chancellor's
578
domain. Taking a wider view of the consumer, all those instances ignore the consumer element in education, health and so on. There has been fragmentation of responsibility for consumer interests in so many Departments that it is difficult to get a cohesive and coherent consumer strategy.
In 1974, we had the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. It did a worthwhile job within a limited context. By creating a Department, the Government pulled together people with a single objective, but the Department failed because its scope was too narrow. Without the price element, it did not merit the status of a Department. Originally, the prices side took half the Department's work but, as that became less important, it was clear that the Department was not viable as an administrative entity. That happened not because the concept of an independent Department was wrong but because the Department was too narrowly based.
One of my first battles in the Department took place when I wanted to take responsibility for safety from the Home Office, which, in fairness, the Home Office was only too happy to relinquish. I lost the battle to get tourism from the Department of Trade. The Department flatly refused to surrender to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection responsibility for package tours, hotel standards and so on. Clearly, those aspects should have been covered by a separate Department.
It is time that we stepped back, looked again at the consumer functions that are submerged throughout Whitehall and considered which could and should be extracted—not which ones the Departments are willing to give up—and given separate Cabinet status through a Department of Consumer Affairs. Such a Department would have the muscle to match the powers of' the sponsoring Departments. It will be even more important after 1992 when we have to struggle with Brussels as well as Whitehall.
5.9 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory: I welcome the opportunity to debate this key subject and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on her perspicacity in pursuing it. For a long time, I have had an interest in consumer matters. In the 1983–87 Parliament, I took the initiative through a private Member's Bill to pioneer the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, which became law.
Although Conservative Members may be full of moans and groans—and I shall add to those shortly—I must say at the outset how delighted I am that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs and his colleagues take the matter so seriously. I want to draw the House's attention particularly to the fact that the Government acted with great speed a short time ago in introducing regulations to ensure that much safer upholstery was used for furniture. With the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I expected to have to carry out an all-party campaign, which might have taken years to achieve such a regulation. However, the carpet was removed from under us and he and I were delighted by the speed with which the Department of Trade and Industry acted.
The Government have protected the consumer and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is but one of the initiatives taken by the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I welcome the debate, I deplore the tone of the motion. I

579
recall the Labour party's lack of interest for a long time in consumer matters when it was in office and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 exempts secondhand goods from the general safety requirements. Although some second-hand goods such as electrical goods are covered by specific safety legislation, others are not. The safety of second-hand and repaired tyres is wholly uncontrolled and there is considerable evidence that potentially dangerous tyres are being sold to the public without any warning or advice about previous use or, more important, major repairs.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East will recall that section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 deals with:
"False or misleading statements as to services".
Section 14 has proved virtually unworkable because it requires a level of proof far in excess of that required by other trading standards legislation. It was a Labour party initiative, but it has not worked in practice although trading standards officers have tried to make it work. The Labour party also scratched at the surface of major issues, such as misdescribed holidays, which I shall speak about in detail in a moment. Do the Government intend to review the provisions and to bring them into line with section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which applies to all goods?
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East referred briefly to loan sharks and I wholly concur with her remarks. Too many people are getting into debt with second or third mortgages. I am concerned, as I am sure you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you have read the national press today, to see that some hon. Members are trying to persuade the Minister to remove warning statements such as "Failure to maintain payments may mean you forfeit your house." That warning should be displayed by all reputable bodies to those seeking a loan. I am surprised that certain finance houses have been trying to persuade hon. Members to have such warnings removed.
Another important matter is shop notices. I was appalled to hear about certain notices in Winchester, to see them in Coney street in York, and in other places, advertising closing-down sales, but without any apparent intention to close down. I remember that a jeweller's shop in Regent street claimed that for some 10 or 12 years. However, in Winchester, the notice said that it was only four days until the closing down sale and another was written in similar terms. When are those shops intending to close down? Will it be next week, next month or the year 2000? Shops can continue with such notices and keep refreshing them. As long as no malice is intended, members of the public can be hoodwinked. If they are not familiar with a town or city, they may believe that they are entering a shop where prices have been reduced artificially because it is closing down.
I want now to turn the spotlight on the travel trade, in view of its importance, and its lack of response to complaints. The trade's constant inability to take action has seriously undermined consumer confidence. After the purchase of a car, a holiday is probably the most expensive regular item bought out of a family budget. Travel agents and operators alike market dreams that rarely reach expectations. In 1977, fewer than 4 million package holidays were sold. The growth in package holidays has
580
been so dramatic that Britain's tour operators expect to offer just under 14 million charter holidays with a value of £3·7 billion in the year to the end of March 1990.
However, consumer satisfaction has hit rock bottom. The Office of Fair Trading reports that as many as one in five people make a formal complaint about their package holiday and that 40 per cent. of foreign trips are plagued by difficulties. Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which came into force on 1 March this year, presumably gives consumers more protection over pricing. The guidelines state:
"Travel agents should make sure that correct price indication for holidays is made clear to consumers before booking."
Our travel agents would do well to have those guidelines placed before every clerk,in every booking office, whether Lunn Poly, Thomas Cook, the Co-operative, Hogg Robinson or whichever, and to be reminded of them every 10 minutes of the day for a good month. Do the guidelines mean that consumers should be given accurate prices with no hidden extras?
Ms. Quin: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he inform us whether he supports the European Community directive on package travel? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs does not.
Mr. Gregory: The hon. Lady has pre-empted my remarks. I give hearty support to that directive, which does not go far enough.
I want to deal now with the problem of inaccurate fares. Travel agents frequently fail to find the lowest fare. In a survey carried out by Which? published in May, 83 per cent. of travel agents quoted the wrong fare. I want to stress for the record that the figure was not 8·3 per cent. but 83 per cent. The agents were not asked a difficult question. They were asked to quote the cheapest scheduled air fare to Geneva, Paris or Brussels. Only 17 per cent. of agents found the cheapest fare. Some quoted more than £82 too much, either through incompetence or through instructions to quote only the fares of certain airlines.
Most operators' forms insist that insurance is taken out at the time of booking and not a minute later, and suggest that otherwise the form in invalid. They require the consumer to accept that, unless they tick a box to the contrary—
Mr. Favell: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge on consumer affairs and, in particular, congratulate him on being a pioneer in consumer legislation in recent years. However, does he agree that it is fair to point out that Britain is a European leader in the provision of cheap package tour holidays? One hears regularly of people from abroad flying with scheduled air fares to this country to take advantages of the many offers here. Are not the reasons why the industry is so successful the fact that tour operators have entered into voluntary agreements and the activities of a private organisation, the Consumers Association, and Which?, its journal?
Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend may be correct to say that the industry has the greatest proportion of sales, but it also has the greatest number of complaints. Rarely do people go back to the agent who has booked their passage. I recall seeing a cartoon recently of an individual in a travel agents who was asked by the clerk where he wanted to go.

581
He said that he would like to go on holiday somewhere close to his baggage. That does not strike me as wholly inappropriate.
I have already referred to the difficulties with travel insurance forms. In addition, the cover is inadequate and the premiums are unacceptable. Holiday insurance premiums are usually higher than any broker would obtain and the cover is not as extensive. Exclusion clauses apply if someone becomes redundant or pregnant after booking a holiday, but that booking could have been made many months before the intended holiday. Therefore, the question of liability must be considered.
I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that many agents are either misinformed or unimaginative. If a consumer purchases a product, it should serve the purpose intended. There is little point in recommending a hotel or venue with no lift or in an area with steep hills for someone who is physically disabled, because such a recommendation could mean that that person is confined to just a few rooms of the hotel.
I do not wish to restrict my remarks entirely to the retail sector and to the travel agents because they often say, "That is not our problem—not in our back yard. The difficulty is with the tour operator." Tour operators have a cavalier approach, often cancelling holidays outright or changing dates. I shall give an example. A couple from Tamworth booked a holiday in Turkey with lntasun. It was cancelled. They were offered an earlier date but could not take it. The holiday was supposed to be a celebration. They chose to take a holiday in Scotland instead and I am jolly pleased that they did so.
Tour operators also change the timing of journeys. I know of pensioners who booked a holiday in Corfu with Horizon specifically because the tour was to depart at 1·40 in the afternoon and return at 8 o'clock at night. However, within days of the intended departure, those people learnt that they were to leave at 11·25 in the evening and return home at 5·40 in the morning. Understandably, they cancelled because the new arrangements represented a quite separate contract from the one that they had entered into.
Many people would like to use their local airport, which makes more sense than bussing people halfway across England. It was for that reason that a family with young children and an elderly aunt chose a holiday that started from Luton, their local airport. However, the operator switched it to Gatwick, a one and a half hour train journey away.
There is also the vexed matter of surcharges, which are not explained and which are operated on a maverick system from one operator to another. Indeed, some firms quote different surcharges for the same holiday. Kuoni Travel Ltd., which normally has a very good reputation, produced separate brochures that quoted different sterling rates for the same holiday. Therefore, people on the same package could face different surcharges—could anything be more ludicrous than that? Yet one faces an uphill struggle if one wants the trade body, the Association of British Travel Agents, to take effective action.
There is also the problem of hotel changes. One can find the chosen destination to be fully booked once one is abroad. I know that ground handlers try to help by putting people in cheaper accommodation for say three nights and then switching their hotel or making the facilities of the intended hotel available later, although they may be four streets away.
582
Holidaymakers travelling abroad expect a high standard of safety in the hotels and apartments in which they spend their holidays. However, the safety levels all too often fall well short of those required in the United Kingdom. I am sure that many hon. Members regularly watch the Esther Rantzen programme on Sundays and will have been appalled to learn of potential hazards such as lifts without internal doors, inadequate railings on stair and balconies, the lack of life-saving equipment at swimming pools and dangerours cots. A list of consumer dissatisfactions would be longer than a month's supply of Hansard, yet operators continually seek to get out of the problems by saying, "Take your claim to the ground handler in the country in which you suffered on that holiday." Clearly, United Kingdom operators and United Kingdom agents should accept their responsibilities.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend has made some valuable and important points, especially about safety. Has he received many complaints, and has he any reflections, about the other side of the coin—the medical care that people seem to be denied by so many companies? Many of the company representatives seem to deny the people in their charge access to the medical care that is available or that should be available from the expensive insurance that those people have taken out. Such representatives are risking the lives of the people who put their trust in them.
Mr. Gregory: I echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Ground handlers seem to be ignorant of the E111 form and its uses. They seem constantly to depend on the travel insurance that has been taken out and do not provide the adequate safeguards to which most consumers are entitled unless the holidaymakers have taken out a more expensive policy with an organisation such as Europ Assistance, which is again to the benefit of the travel agent, when such safeguards could and should have been organised more properly at the beginning of the process.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, I hope that he will at least confirm that he is unhappy about safety levels and that he would like to see greater responsibility from the tour operators and agents. I hope that he will call on them to ensure that they accept liability, because operators cannot continue to shirk that important point. The regular horror stories in all our postbags would not be so intense if the travel trade took its responsibilities seriously and did not make so many errors in the first place. It should be prompt in offering proper compensation.
Far too many operators try the hard-sell through glossy brochures and have no compunction about cancelling holidays outright or offering different destinations, departure times, airports and flight times.
The message that appears to be coming through is that, although one may have thought that one had entered into a contract, one cannot be sure if, when and where one is going on holiday.
Much of the anger and frustration could be deflected if the travel trade offered adequate compensation. Two tour giants, Thomson Holidays and Horizon, last year launched "no cancellation" offers. I am sure that with his laissez-faire approach my hon. Friend would say that they are splendid companies to do so. That offer seemed to be a guarantee that arrangements would be honoured and that the small print would not be invoked. However,

583
consumers booking with those companies already know that that offer is not worth the paper that it is printed on because the companies have been sliding out of their responsibilities, offering as little as £15 compensation. That is derisory and it ill becomes their press officers to have made so much of their approach last year.
Tour operators have had their chance in voluntary codes of conduct and have been found lacking all the way along. The time has come for some Government intervention. It is because Government action is called for that I turn now to the EEC draft directive on package travel. It contains a great deal of commonsense and even the Association of British Travel Agents, which is the main body for both agents and operators in the travel trade, has stated that it
"accepts that there is a need for additional protection for EC travellers."
That is quite a statement from ABTA, which rarely admits anything. I am delighted that it has accepted that point even though, in its consultation documents to the Minister, it has tried to erode each point of the draft directive. I am glad of that admission from ABTA because we need some redress and the consumer, whom we are trying to support in this debate, needs help.
Press comments have suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister would like a package holiday ombudsman. Indeed, the consumer must have statutory rights which could, by all means, be backed up by a trade body. An ombudsman would be welcome, but we need a trade that is willing and anxious to participate and the holiday trade seems reluctant to do so.
The draft directive calls for compensation to holiday makers who have reasonable complaints. ABTA's submission states:
"Many of the risks resulting from the Directive would be uninsurable."
I wonder whether ABTA has heard of Lloyd's of London. Perhaps we could introduce the two parties to each other because there is no such word as "uninsurable".
I remember debating insurance with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when discussing the major consumer legislation of the previous Parliament. We discussed covering the liability for pharmaceutical risks, the extent to which consumers were exposed to risks with new pharmaceutical products and the extent to which the risk was insurable. The answer is that it was insurable; Lloyd's is prepared to underwrite the risk. It is unrealistic, and unbecoming, for a great tour industry not to fulfil its responsibilities properly.
ABTA says that consumers can only realistically expect an organiser to use his best endeavours and have third party liability, which would be limited. In other words, ABTA seeks to transfer liability to anyone other than itself—to the ground handler or to the consumer, perhaps, for having been unfortunate enough to book a package holiday in that particular place. ABTA is shirking its responsibility.
Let us consider the objections. The travel trade says that it is reluctant to offer compensation or take responsibility for the difference in price of the holiday if the price has increased by more than 2 per cent. Other industries quote forward, and stick to their quotes. Take the example of the motor car industry. One may book a new motor car three or four months in advance. The price
584
may change, but a contract has been entered into and the motor trade honourably allows the purchase to take place at the earlier price.
ABTA says that bland and unhelpful expressions would enter the brochures—for example,
"There are sporting facilities usually available."
But that is all that the consumer gets now. Virtually no operator and few agents reveal information about noise. One rarely knows, for example, whether a hotel is close to a busy road. Then there is proximity to the beach. I have yet to see a brochure that properly informs its readers whether it is a sand or a shingle beach. Few say whether there are lifts in the property or set out costs of using a swimming pool, towels or a sunbed. Anyone who has been to the Mediterranean will be aware that war almost breaks out on the beaches between the British and the Germans over the availability of sunbeds. One may discover unexpectedly that there are no shops at the airport. That is one problem that Intourist faces, as I discovered when I had the pleasure of visiting Moscow and Leningrad over Easter. For someone with a young family, it is vital to be able to find soft drinks at the airport, especially if one is to be held there for three or four hours or, as in my case, five hours. We went without refreshment.
What compensation do operators offer for such delays? I cannot find a brochure that offers a penny until 12 or more hours have elapsed. Imagine that. A holidaymaker may go to the airport an hour or two before the required time for the flight and then may have to wait 11 of the 12 hours without compensation. The start or end of a holiday should not be ruined by excessive delays such as that, and we need compensation for shorter delays. In the case of someone who has gone on a weekend break, half a day—a large proportion of the time available—will already have been used, yet he will be offered little or no compensation.
In view of that catalogue of complaints, it is not surprising that Blackpool attracts more British visitors that Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Turkey put together, and long may that last. Operators offering the splendid United Kingdom destinations operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Holiday packages in Great Britain and Ulster are first class, and all concerned take their responsibilities seriously, but those selling primarily overseas lack consumer commitment.
We have waited too long for the overseas package holiday trade to put its house in order. Now is the time to act, and every traveller will journey with confidence this summer if he knows that the British Government have insisted on a fair deal.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Unless speeches are shorter, some hon. Members will be disappointed at 7 o'clock.
5.34 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for raising many important issues. I declare an interest, as the speech that I shall make had its genesis a fortnight ago when I looked at some of my flowers and vetegables and found that they were covered with greenfly when they ought not to have been covered with greenfly. I am

585
indebted, too, to Nicholas Carter, a senior scientist at Rothamsted, who provided me with a great deal of information.
The subject of my speech is the future of the national insect survey at a time when aphids are filling fields and gardens throughout the summer. If this were a personal complaint, I should not raise it in the House, but as it is a widespread complaint, about which something could be done, and as the Government are taking unjustifiable action in cutting agricultural research, I feel fully entitled to do so.
We have had a mild dry May, and the biggest explosion in the aphid population for 15 years. Greenfly, blackfly and other pests are threatening crops but apparently it is intended that the Rothamsted insect survey should close many of its insect traps, provide less information about the spread of aphids and cut its forecasting activities, which are vital to farmers.
One consequence will be that more insecticide will be sprayed as an insurance, in the absence of information about pests. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, therefore, for bringing me into order by making environmental consequences part of the subject of her motion.
The Rothamsted survey monitors insects using traps sucking insects out of the air and collecting them for future counting and analysis. The first British suction trap was set at Rothamsted experimental station in 1964. By 1970, 10 more traps had joined the survey. By last year, 23 traps, each 12·2 m tall, were in operation—including six in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, I emphasise that we are greatly concerned about the problem that is now upon us in Scotland.
Rothamsted has the most extensive network of suction traps in the world. During 446 site-years its researchers have counted almost 10 million aphids from 300 species. This invaluable database, which allows scientists to make accurate predictions about times of infestation by many aphids, is threatened by the Government's policy on agricultural research, which they regard as a commercial spin-off. An unpublished Government review of agriculture research and development, known as the Barnes report, has identified aspects of Rothamsted's work, such as its forecasting activities, as near market as it can save farmers money by pinpointing times at which they need to apply insecticides to their fields. The Government believe that that work should be paid for by the farmers.
Funds for the insect research survey which come through the Agriculture and Food Research Council's institute of arable crops research are being reduced. As a result, the survey will have to close some traps completely and monitor others for only part of the year. The IRS weekly publication The Aphid Bulletin and Aphid Commentary, distributed by post, free of charge, to more than 300 interested people will not appear this year.
The Government's shortsighted approach threatens an unrivalled database for entymological and ecological research, as well as for farmers. It is likely to lead to the more profligate spraying of chemicals by farmers, who will be unaware of the true extent of any likely aphid attack. The loss of data also threatens efforts to assess whether environmental changes, including climatic changes, are having long-term effects on the insect population.
Workers who empty suction traps look not only for aphids but for aphids' many predators such as ladybirds, hover flies, lacewings, spiders and beetles. All those
586
captured are kept and catalogued. The damson hop aphid attacks hops. Insecticides can prevent it from causing larger reductions in the yields of hop gardens in Herefordshire and Kent every year. The spraying of insecticides has been so intensive that the damson hop aphid has developed a resistance to many of the chemicals used. The time to spray for maximum effect is when the aphid migrates from its winter hosts—damsons and sloes—to hops. Samples taken in Kent and Hereford over the past 15 years combine with weather details to provide a good database from which to project the start and finish of the migration. The samples revealed that it is possible to use data on temperatures in early spring, rainfall figures for winter and spring and the amount of sunshine in summer to predict the migrations.
All that work is threatened, yet with greenhouse effect conditions, it is even more important. For example, the black bean aphid spends the winter on spindle trees and migrates to crops such as spring beans in May or June. Suction traps provide more data, from an elaborate system of constantly updated forecasts, of the size and timing of the migrations. The system was developed by IRS together with the Government's agricultural development and advisory service and Imperial college, London. Forecasts are based on the size of the previous autumn's migration as measured in suction traps, egg sampling and sampling of aphids on spindle trees in the spring and, finally, the early stages of spring migration. In 1989 researchers expect damage to bean crops in much of eastern England and the west midlands. Crop infestation by aphids has already occurred some two weeks earlier than usual.
You asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have made my point in general and, as the Minister is nodding, I assume that he believes it to be a serious point. Nicholas Carter and others—I consulted widely before the debate—have produced a great deal of information, of which much is available to gardeners. Long-term data such as those provided by the IRS will prove valuable in determining trends in aphid population biology, and such trends may be linked to changes in land use or climate. That role for the survey has not yet attracted a great deal of attention, but it may turn out to be its most important as concern about the changing climate gathers ground. Unfortunately, the long-term monitoring that is essential to such work is often the poor relation of science because it is non-experimental and needs no sophisticated equipment. Thus the Natural Environment Research Council gives a low priority to its biological records centre. The problem is that long-term monitoring is often incompatible with short-term decisions about funding. Once a continuous sequence of data is broken, it can never be recovered.
If such work is interrrupted, let alone brought to an end for some short-term financial gain—quite frankly, an accounting gain—to make the books of a Department look good, great damage will be done. There must be some sort of sequence in that work. There are several million gardeners in this country. Indeed, the Minister represents a Worcestershire constituency. Worcestershire is famous for its gardens and many of the Minister's constituents will think it a heck of a pity if any of the work relevant to the national insect survey is interrupted.
I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has done me the courtesy of coming into the Chamber. He represents a beautiful part of a beautiful city and I can assure him that his constituents are most concerned about

587
the problems of aphids such as greenfly and blackfly. If the Under-Secretary does not believe that, he should ask his constituents in Davidson's Mains. I hope that the Scottish Office will take an interest in this matter. I shall tell him exactly what I have said and where I obtained my information when we are behind the Chair. I am hoping for two detailed answers—one from the consumer Minister, once he has contacted his MAFF colleagues, and the other from the Scottish Office.
5.44 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for not wishing to follow his speech because, quite frankly, I did not understand it—[Interruption.] Some of us admit that we do not understand matters, unlike certain Labour Members who interrupt from sedentary positions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on raising this important subject for debate. I apologise for having missed the beginning of her speech, but I was doing some work on something to do with Europe that will occur later in the week, although what it is escapes me for the moment. I was disappointed with much of what she said. She gave a long shopping list of aspirations and ideas about what could be controlled and what sort of standards should be introduced, but I heard no strategy for how to do that. I assume that her remarks came from the same stable as those of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), although he put forward a strategy largely based on his experiences as a Consumer Minister. I had a great deal of sympathy with what he said, although I did not necessarily agree with his strategy.
Two separate roads could be taken in approaching this problem. I am not entirely sure that the Labour party and I want to take the same road. It is right that people should be protected from buying dangerous goods or a service that does not live up to its description. A number of ideas have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House suggesting changes in the law, new regulations and new codes of conduct.
I do not want to go down the road of seeking to tell people what are the best options in what is available, but from much of what the hon. Lady said I detected her wish to go down that road. She concentrated many of her remarks on information. My experience of some of the consumer information services provided by local authorities is that they tell people, "This is the range of goods available and this is what we think you should buy." Local authorities are not equipped to give such advice. It is certainly not the purpose of Government, whether central or local, to spoonfeed people as though they always know what is best, what consumers should be buying and how they should spend their money. Spoonfeeding is very much a Labour party approach—indeed, it is exactly the approach set out in its 1983 election manifesto. No doubt that is why it did so disastrously. The manifesto contained 100 pages telling people how the Labour party would run their lives for them. From the hon. Lady's remarks, that still appears to be very much the Labour party's approach.
Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman would do well to concentrate on what my hon. Friend the Member for
588
Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said rather than on what he wishes she had said. I hope that he will now get on with the reality rather than the fantasy.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was rather peripatetic during the hon. Lady's speech. I thought that he entered the Chamber after me and so could not have heard all that she said. I can understand his wish that the Labour party's 1983 election manifesto did not exist. Perhaps he wishes that he had not stood on that manifesto.
Ms. Quin: At what point during my speech did the hon. Gentleman enter the Chamber? He complained about the absence of a strategy, yet I began my speech by saying that consumer interests needed to be taken into account across Government Departments. I referred to certain matters that were later taken up and enlarged upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that point and I shall certainly read the early part of her speech. I remember looking at the clock when I entered the Chamber at 3.42 pm. I am, of course, delighted to hear that the hon. Lady covered those points.
I wish to take a different approach from other hon. Members to the food issue, and pick up a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. He said, in many ways quite rightly, that gone are the days of the local buyer knowing the local producer. Of course those days have gone. We do not necessarily know who produces the goods. It is important that people should have trust in stores such as Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and the manufacturers.
That point has been brought home to parents who are concerned about the problems that have been faced by some baby food manufacturers. It is interesting to look at the manufacturers' different responses. Farleys had a milk problem. It is instructive for all food manufacturers to think carefully about what caused the problem in the Farleys factory. In the end, the company went out of business or had to be bought out by, I think, Boots. The company went out of business because people lost trust in it. Did they lose trust in that company because of the problem in the factory? They did not. They lost trust in the company because of the way in which it reacted to the problem in its factory.
The managing director of the company appeared on BBC television and said that there was a problem. That was several days after the problem appeared in the factory, and, until then, the company had failed to tell the public about it. When he finally admitted that there was a problem, in that live BBC interview, the managing director advised people not to buy that company's products any more and to throw away the products that they had at home. The advice to throw those products away was rather ungenerous. As subsequent manufacturers who have had similar problems have said, the managing director should have said, "Return the products to us and we will refund your money." That would demonstrate a more generous attitude.
What finally killed the Farleys company was reluctance on the part of the senior executive to admit that there was a problem in the factory and the company's failure to close the production line when the problem was discovered. As

589
a parent, when I heard that the company had not closed its production line, I lost confidence in the company. I was clearly not alone, as the company went bankrupt.
Mr. Frank Cook: Quite right, too.
Mr. Hughes: I hope that I heard the hon. Gentleman say from a sedentary portion, "Quite right, too." I agree. [Interruption.] One day the hon. Gentleman will treat hon. Members to a speech. It will be a rare thing. He makes only sedentary contributions when I am in the Chamber.
There has been a marked difference in the problems that are faced by other baby food manufacturers such as Cow and Gate. As the parent of two small boys, I still have every confidence in Cow and Gate and other companies.
Mr. McCartney: And Heinz.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for mentioning Heinz. I am sure that he will agree that those companies were totally honest and, therefore, deserve the support and trust of all parents. From what they say about their sales figures, it is obvious that they are getting that trust. We place enormous trust in the retailer and the producer. Whatever the Government might do and whatever regulations might be in force, that trust is foremost in buyers' minds.
I may have missed what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said, but I was surprised that she did not pay tribute to the consumer safety statistics that have been collected by the DTI. Important changes have been made in the updating of consumer safety statistics and the basis on which they have been collected, including the extension of the system to cover leisure accidents. I am the sponsor of the Safety in Children's Playgrounds Bill. Many groups are seeking to improve safety standards in children's playgrounds. It is important for them to get from the DTI relevant statistics about the number of children who need to be hospitalised, and why. It is easy to have a preconceived idea of why accidents happen in playgrounds. For instance, most people believe that the hard surfaces in two thirds of our playgrounds cause most accidents in playgrounds. However, the DTI has revealed that most accidents happen because children collide while running from one piece of play equipment to another. Without further statistics, how can we introduce further legislation, standards or codes of practice, as I hope that the Department of the Environment will do?
It is important to pay tribute to the work of the DTI—
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the relevance of the contribution by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)? His remarks about play schools and playgrounds are interesting, but how are they related to the EEC? He is talking about the presentation of British standards rather than EEC standards. Some hon. Members have been waiting a considerable time to debate the poll tax.
Mr. Hughes: People will read that intervention with great interest and note that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is clearly not interested in safety in children's playgrounds, and the parents in his constituency—
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) to the terms of the motion. I am bound to say that he seems to be ignoring the motion, whatever the merits or demerits of any later debate may be. I ask him to have regard to the number of hon. Members who are waiting to speak in a short debate.
Mr. Hughes: I acknowledge that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman's point of order is rather amiss. As you will have read, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the first line of the motion states
"To call attention to the failure of the Government to protect the consumer".
It goes on:
"that government policies have failed to benefit the consumer".
I was making consumer points. They belie the motion. I should have thought that it was not only reasonable but important for those points to be made.
It is essential to have not only consumer safety statistics but consumer safety campaigns. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on conducting the campaigns. The first was on toy safety. Most of us in the peak shopping time before Christmas saw giant teddy bears in the shops, with retailers helping to promote the safety message There has been an improvement in consumer awareness of fireworks safety. Fireworks are dangerous things. Anything that can be done to limit their use or to persuade people not to use them is good.
There have been electric blanket campaigns designed to encourage the elderly in particular to get their old electric blankets serviced. There is nothing that the Government can do to make that happen. How can we get someone to take an old electric blanket to be serviced merely because the Government say so? However, people can be persuaded, and persuasion is important. In conjunction with the Child Accident Prevention Trust, two booklets on child safety equipment and on the safety of nursery equipment have been made available through the clinics to all new parents. I was impressed, when our last baby was born five months ago, when I received copies of those booklets. I pay tribute to the Minister for making those booklets available.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East said that part of the Government's response to the issue—as she put it, the Government's inadequate response—was privatisation. I do not understand how she can make that point. She said that privatisation had failed to protect the consumer, especially in terms of price. If one considers the prices charged for electricity and gas, they are lower in real terms than those charged previously—certainly those charged under the Labour Government. Those who pay electricity and gas bills know that prices are lower than they were, and that they have not gone up in line with inflation. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Opposition Members either laugh or shout ridiculous comments from a sedentary position, when both the Labour party and its friends in office, the Liberals, did so much to hike up the prices of those two basic commodities. They know that they are responsible for the twin evils of high prices and under-investment in those two industries.
Privatisation of those industries has, first, protected the consumer by keeping the prices down, and, secondly, has caused a substantial rise in investment in those industries, which is another important protection for the consumer.
Mr. McCartney: What about water charges?
Mr. Hughes: I shall be coming to those.
Ms. Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which would be his priority—privatisation of the water industry or bringing our water quality up to EC standards?
Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Lady has mentioned the water industry, I will comment on it now. We must compare the record of this Government with that of the Labour Government. As we know—after all, the chairman of the Water Authorities Association has told us this—we are still suffering from the massive under-investment of the Labour Government, which is causing problems on our beaches and with our water supply.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I shall give way when I have answered this point.
That under-investment is still causing problems. [Interruption.] It is all very well saying that was 10 years ago, but it is the experts who are trying to run those businesses who tell us the answers, not hon. Members speaking from a sedentary position.
Water privatisation will give us a guarantee that we can have decent standards for our water supply, because the supply will have to be to the standards laid down by the National Rivers Authority. The Labour party, having voted against all those provisions in the Water Bill, has put itself on to the side of those people who are the polluters of the water supply and who do not care about higher standards for water. Of course, we shall have higher water standards. We do not need the Labour party, with its dreadful record in government, to give us any lectures on that point.
Those are important areas for consumer protection. I believe that the Government have a good record on consumer protection, and that they have given it a higher priority by ensuring that there is real work carried out, rather than the pretence of a Ministry. We have heard from the Labour party today that it wants to return to the pretence of wrapping these things up in words. It wants to over-regulate and to tell people that politicians can make decisions better than ordinary people making their purchases. I do not believe that that policy will wash with the public. They want the freedom to make their own decisions, providing that they know that they can have protection from shoddy goods and from false promises. Once we have made more strides in that direction, as we shall in the next few years, people will understand, as in so many other areas, that the Labour party's approach to this matter is entirely fraudulent.
6.4 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I fear that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) missed almost every relevant point at the core of the debate. If one wants to take the two extremes of the argument, there is the extreme view that says that the free market will solve all our problems and the one that says everything will have to be regulated down to the last detail. Having said that, the main contributors to the debate are saying neither of those things. I believe that the constructive debate is to recognise the limitations of the market place and those of the
592
regulatory authority, and determine how one can secure a sensible balance. That is how we might achieve a constructive debate.
Given that the context in which the motion is set is the move towards the single market in 1992, the point to stress at the outset is that there is obviously an argument as to what the single market will mean for the consumer. I want to make it clear that I believe that the single market offers great opportunities for the consumer. The creation of a unified economy of more than 320 million people offers a very wide range of choice and opportunity for the consumer, economies of scale for the producer, which will help to bring down costs by securing access to a bigger market, and a higher rate of innovation, both of the product and of technology. Those are the kind of benefits that I believe can and should accrue. Indeed, I am advised that a report by Alber and Ball to the European Parliament in 1983 estimated that the existing regulations across the Common Market amounted to the loss of a week's wages for every worker within the Community. One must assume, therefore, that removing many of those restrictions will be of positive benefit.
I want to make it clear that I believe that the single market is something to be welcomed and to be encouraged. I understand the arguments from Conservative Members that we do not want to go into that situation only to impose a whole range of alternative regulations. I believe, however, that we need to approach the matter in an objective and sensible manner. One argument is to say that a free market is the best possible protection for the consumer. My comment on that is, perhaps, but "it ain't necessarily so," and that there are tendencies within a free market to create monopolies and a situation where consumers are disadvantaged and where they need active intervention to secure redress.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and other hon. Members have mentioned the Government's programme of privatisation. I do not want to dwell on that matter for very long, but it is worth saying that in the run-up to the privatisation of British Gas and to the current privatisation of electricity, the Government have pursued a policy of deliberately raising the prices of those commodities to the consumer by a rate far higher than the rate of inflation. I do not have to defend the last Labour Government—indeed it is not my intention to do so—but to refer to something that happened 10 years ago and to ignore the fact that the price of oil went over $40 at that time—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Here are the excuses.
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman says than any excuse will do, but $40 of 10 years ago has to be compared with a price that actually dipped two years ago to $9 and is now under $20. That is a substantial difference. That rather goes with the Government's claim that they have presided over record investment and earnings. Almost every year of this century, barring wartime and the first two years of the present Government, Governments have been able to say that. If they were not able to say that, they would not have been re-elected, so it does not amount to a very substantial or radical claim.
One takeover that I feel has not necessarily added to the benefit of the consumer has been the takeover of British Caledonian Airways by British Airways, which I believe should not have happened. It was brought about as a

593
direct consequence of the Government's refusal to recognise, when British Airways was privatised as a monopoly, that it was such a dominant player in the domestic scene that it effectively destroyed the possibility of British Caledonian Airways remaining as an independent airline. As somebody who has to make frequent use of British Airways, I do not believe that, as a consumer, I receive adequate treatment in choice or service. Too often British Airways cancels planes at short notice—it is very often the last plane of the day—very often because it has to divert that aircraft to a route on which it faces competition. Therefore, the exact opposite to what is intended follows. Because it has a monopoly on certain routes, the consumer who is completely dependent on British Airways suffers the greatest. Those who would have the opportunity to divert to another airline find that they have a choice, because British Airways cannot afford to leave them without the choice and lose the business to its competitor. The Government should address such problems and should ensure that British Airways operates as a competitor on routes, but, if it is accepted that a certain route cannot sustain two operators, the Government should ensure that the consumer is given the same treatment as would be given on a route where competition exists.
When companies have been privatised as monopolies it has been argued that regulation is necessary. That argument does not divide the House—why else did the Government introduce Ofgas and Oftel if they did not recognise that such regulations was necessary? The argument that divides the House is the extent to which that regulation should be effective. I have no doubt that when the Electricity Bill comes back to the House two important amendments accepted in the other place will be reversed. That is regrettable because those amendments were in the interests of the consumer. When the Gas Bill went through the House, I and other hon. Members pointed out that the provision of choice in the industrial sector was totally inadequate and that British Gas would be taken to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That proved to be correct.
One of the concerns about the single market and its implications for consumers is its effect on and drive towards mergers and takeovers. In recent years we have seen evidence of that. The takeover philosophy is different in different member states. My party believes that the obligation to prove that a takeover is in the consumer's interest should be put on the hostile predator and not on the recipient of the bid. Evidence collected by the Minister's Department suggests that the vast majority of takeovers are, almost by definition, designed not to increase competition or consumer choice, but to consolidate the larger, hostile bidder's position within the market. By definition, that is contrary to consumer interest. General statements of good will are made and we are told that economies of scale will be made and rationalisation procedures will be followed that will benefit the consumer. Analysis, however, suggests that once the bid has been accepted the consumer is worse off. Our proposals would lead to a dramatic improvement in the protection of consumer interests. It is to my continual regret that the Government have said that such takeovers are a matter for the shareholders and that consumer interests do not count. They believe that if the shareholders are willing to sell, that is the only basis on which most takeovers should be decided.
594
Shareholders are always delighted to sell because increasing their standing in the market place enables them to exploit the consumer for an even greater profit. Why on earth should shareholders resist such an obvious temptation? The Government and the wider community have an obligation to ensure that takeovers are examined for their possible benefit to the consumer.
It is worth making a comparison between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. In that country hostile takeovers are almost unknown, essentially because the structure of ownership within German industry means that it is almost impossible to secure such a takeover without the consent of the main banker of any corporation, who also tends to be the major shareholder.
As 1992 approaches Britain is increasingly vulnerable to takeovers from countries inside and outside the Community and, at the same time, we are unable to secure similar access to the ownership of those countries' markets.
It is interesting to consider the financial characteristics of the European markets in comparison to our own. Mention has already been made of consumer credit. I shall not be mealy-mouthed about it. I believe that the ethic the Government have advanced has fuelled a consumer credit boom that has fundamentally weakened our economy and has meant that many people face genuine financial hardship. I do not believe it is just a case of loan sharks, but the way in which our retailing operators conduct their business. When people go to a shopping centre they are actively encouraged to take out lines of credit for goods and services which they do not actually need, but which they are tempted to buy. They are not aware of how they will pay for such goods and services. I do not believe that consumers are adequately protected against being tempted to take on levels of credit that they cannot afford to sustain. Such credit is even more damaging since the Government have lost control of the economy and have been forced to jack up rates of interest dramatically over a short time. People now find that their level of repayments is far greater than they had anticipated or budgeted for. The code of practice that has operated in some of our retail stores must be altered radically.
It is interesting to consider the two most successful economies of the developed world—Japan and West Germany. They operate on highly conservative financial principles and the level of savings is far, far higher than our own. It is between 15 and 20 per cent. Long-term strategies are carefully considered by those countries. We operate on a short-term basis and our propensity to save could well move into a negative index soon as a direct result of the climate created by the Government.
The Government's policy is extraordinary, as they seem to encourage people to buy goods and services that are not produced in this country with money that most people do not have. On that basis it is not surprising that our economy is getting into trouble. The Government continue to claim that the thrust of their policy is the need to keep inflation under control and yet they refuse to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. All the evidence suggests, however, that our membership of that mechanism would not only help to bring inflation under control, particularly in the long term, but that such inflationary control could be achieved with lower rates of interest. It is interesting to note that the French found a direct correlation between that and—
Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The European monetary system has nothing to do with the motion on the Order Paper and you should bear in mind that a number of hon. Members still want to speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is straying considerably from the motion on the Order Paper, but I am sure that he will bring his remarks back to the motion.
Mr. Bruce: Yes. My simple point is that every consumer I meet would like us to have a level of inflation comparable to that in France and interest rate levels comparable to those of other countries. Consumers would benefit from our membership of the European monetary system. It appears that the Prime Minister and her adviser, Professor Alan Walters, are alone in the conviction that their argument is right.
It has been argued that consumers, in order to make a rational choice in the market place, must have access to information, particularly in the case of environmental protection. Earlier it was suggested that the market was already responding to consumer concern and that retailers had managed to give people information by better labelling and that that had meant that, at no cost and without Government action, environmentally offensive products had been and were being phased out. That argument has been advanced in relation to aerosol cans and CFCs, but they represent a relatively small part of the problem in comparison to the range of environmental concerns. Many of the companies that had introduced ozone-friendly aerosols still operate large amounts of refrigeration and air-conditioning machinery and they do not make adequate provision for that machinery's disposal through recycling. Therefore, they are in danger of destroying all the marketing benefits which they have given to the consumer, because of their own industrial effluent. The consumer should know about that.
The importance of information has recently been highlighted by a couple of specific issues. In an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East I drew attention to the issue of dioxins, which she had mentioned. I represent paper manufacturers and fully understand the balance of the arguments. The American markets have proved that consumers demand information and a right to choose. They want to know whether the products that can produce dioxins are being used in the bleaching of particular paper products. They also want the right to buy dioxin-free products.
At the moment, the Government's reaction, which I have raised with Ministers, is that that is entirely a matter to which the markets should respond. That is not good enough. First, there should be regulations to ensure that the information is provided and, secondly, there should be, at the very least, a Government push to ensure that choice is provided. That has happened in the United States. One benefit of the larger single market may be that it will make that easier to happen within the European Community: I hope so.
Last week, I also raised the issue of Alar, which has been banned in the United States, but which is still used in the United Kingdom. Consumers need to know whether an apple product has been treated with Alar. If they have that information, they may well ensure that the market determines that Alar is phased out, but without it they are
596
unable to do anything other than refuse to have anything to do with apples, which seems to be a draconian response to force on consumers.
I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak so I shall draw my remarks to a close. The Government should acknowledge that there is a role for them, as for local authorities, in the process of securing information, alerting the public and providing the necessary facilities. In a number of ways, the Government are being asked to promote good environmental practices and, so far, they are not providing the support needed. I commend local authorities which, for example, have established a code of practice in their contracts on the protection of tropical hardwoods and the recycling and use of CFCs. It is regrettable that, so far, the Government have not been prepared to promote an initiative to enable the recycling of CFCs or labelling—never mind a code of practice—for tropical hardwoods, ensuring that they come only from sustainable sources. If they do not come from sustainable sources, the community should be entitled to set up a collective ban against them. That is the one way in which the promotion of sustainable tropical hardwoods could be ensured. On both these issues, local authorities such as Sutton and my own council of Gordon have taken initiatives and asked the Government to support them to enable them to increase their services to the consumer. However, so far, their requests have fallen on deaf ears.
When fully developed, the single market offers a wide variety of opportunities for consumers. However, because of the wide differences within the Community, there must be a recognition of common consumer standards and the Government must recognise their responsibility to set that balance. I fear that, to date, they have not done so. I have received all sorts of concerned representations on many matters of developments in a rapidly changing market.
Those people feel that, at the very least, more information should be made available and that, if the Government are not prepared to be the agents to secure the information, the market response is often too slow.
Sheltered housing and the voluntary code of practice have been mentioned in the debate. Only last week, I was approached by a councillor, who was of a more Conservative than SLD persuasion and was concerned at the way in which nursing homes and sheltered housing operations for the elderly in the private sector seemed to be able to pitch their price according to a person's ability to pay. The industry effectively built its profit on running down people's money and was happy to allow them to continue on social security when their money had run out. That suggests simple profiteering: if it is not, I assure the Minister that there is great worry among Conservatives who feel that it looks awfully like it. Those are the sort of matters for which the Government have responsibility.
I hope that the Minister will accept that this debate is about securing a sensible balance between a totally unbridled free market and excessive regulation. The Government are in danger of leaving the balance too much on the side of the free market, which does not work exclusively in consumers' interests.
6.26 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: This has been an interesting debate for me, and I think that I speak for other hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for introducing this

597
interesting subject, which has exercised the minds of the Government throughout the 10 years in which they have been in power.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East, is wrong to suggest that the Government are not interested in consumers' interests. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 was wide reaching, far ranging and far from popular with many of the organisations and concerns which the hon. Lady would consider to be natural supporters of the Government. There was much opposition from manufacturers to the first part of the Act which, for the first time, gave the man in the street the opportunity to sue manufacturers for damage without having to prove negligence. That was completely new to British law and has been, and will be, vastly popular with the consumer. It was, of course, unpopular with the manufacturers.
Under the Act it became an offence, with certain exceptions, to provide unsafe consumer goods. For the first time, it imposed a general duty on suppliers to ensure, with some exceptions—one or two of which, particularly food, I agree with the hon. Lady ought to be reconsidered—that goods supplied were safe.
The Act also made the provision of misleading price indications an offence.
The Act said what suppliers of goods and services should not do. It is far easier for the Executive and those who have to enforce the Act to do that. It is far more difficult to do what the hon. Lady suggests: to say what the suppliers of goods should do. She suggested, and I intervened at the time, that there should be far greater regulation on the make-up of manufactured goods. In a changing world it is impossible to lay down standards for goods that people do not even think will emerge on to the market, to say what they should and should not contain.
The hon. Lady also suggested that there should be far greater labelling. Before I entered the Chamber, I bought a Marathon bar from the Tea Room.
Mr. Frank Cook: This is the first commercial.
Mr. Favell: I am not going to admit to my wife that I bought it or, at least, that I am going to consume it. It is absolutely smothered in information, most of which I do not understand. I understand that it contains fresh milk chocolate with fresh roasted peanuts and a peanut butter nougat and caramel centre. However, I do not understand 62 g E. It gives me the following nutritional information:
"Energy 1248 kJ/298 kcal
Carborhydrate 33·5 g
Protein 6·3 g
Fat 16·4 g
(of which saturates 7·4 g)"
It goes on to tell me how I can win a trip to the Super Bowl, and gives me various other guarantees, which I cannot read because the print is far too small. There are various competition rules for yet another competition. Finally, it says that it is best before 2 September 1989, which I understand, with another hieroglyphic on the side. It is the first time that I have read the cover on this product and it will be the last. I do not think that any other hon. Member has ever read one of these before.
I suggest that we keep these messages simple. Already, my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, products' labels must show safety warnings and, on food, they must tell us the "best before" date and give details of the product. That
598
is fair enough, and it is quite enough to go on any label. It is simple and intelligible to someone like me and to 99 per cent. of the population.
It is unreasonable to attack the Government for failing to protect the consumer; we have a long record of protecting him or her. The first great act—some might say it was also the last—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was to introduce his retail price maintenance legislation. That was a great act on behalf of the consumer and it was certainly not popular with those who would be regarded as the Government's natural supporters. We have not stopped there. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will remind us of the Financial Services Act 1986, which was highly unpopular with many of the Government's natural supporters.
We are now introducing legislation to protect the consumer against the lawyers, of whom, alas, I am one. With my lawyer's hat on, I must say that that legislation is not popular with me, but I can understand it from the consumer's point of view. We are also questioning the activities of the brewers—organisations regarded by the Opposition parties as natural supporters of the Conservative party. We fear no man, however, and we are seriously looking into what we regard as the brewers' abuses of their monopoly power.
Finally, we are tackling the doctors. The doctors themselves tell us that, almost to a man, they voted for us in the last general election, but we are not in the business for votes: we are in business for the consumer. We genuinely believe that our reforms are for the benefit of the patients. They are certainly not intended merely to garner votes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Eric Forth.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here since the beginning of the debate, during which hon. Members who have gone in and out have spoken for considerable lengths of time and were called out of order on numerous occasions by another Deputy Speaker. It is unfair that I should not be allowed at least two minutes in which to place on record a point to which the Minister may want to respond in writing—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he now wishes to respond to the debate.
6.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I regret the position in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, but it is not for me to get involved in the way in which the debate has proceeded—until now, it has been most orderly—
Mr. McCartney: I want to raise the issue of hazardous chemicals and of possible changes in EEC legislation which will undermine the position in Britain. If I am prepared to write to the Minister, will he make arrangements for him or a colleague in the Department of Transport to meet me to discuss this matter?
Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that whenever he contacts Ministers of any Department he will receive a courteous, full and—I hope—speedy reply. I hope that he will in this case. I certainly undertake to reply to him if he writes to me.

599
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for raising this matter in the way in which she has and for using what is always a precious occasion—coming high in the ballot for motions—to do so. That has enabled her and other hon. Members to set out their anxieties and some important points about the vital matter of consumer protection. It also gives me the opportunity, for which I am grateful, to set out some of my and the Government's thoughts on the subject.
I start, unashamedly and with some pride, by quoting from the White Paper put out by the Department of Trade and Industry in January 1989:
"In consumer protection, the policy emphasis will reflect the Government's belief that the best form of protection comes from consumers making well-informed choices and acting in their own interests. To achieve this, information can be more effective than regulation. However, where the case is made out for regulation on safety or other grounds, the Government will not hesitate to act."
That not only encapsulates the Government's view but it reflects the tone of many of today's contributions—and not only from the Conservative side. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made remarks along these lines. We are not necessarily separated by much on this matter. I want to deal with as many of the detailed points that have been made as possible.
To illustrate the Government's attitude, I want to give an example of the sort of approach that we tend to adopt, based on a combination of information when appropriate, and regulation when appropriate. In this context, I want to mention the promotion of timeshare developments, which has worried many hon. Members and their constituents. I have received a number of complaints about timeshare, most relating to the award schemes used to entice people to presentations at which they are often subjected to high-pressure sales techniques. Some end up signing contracts which they subsequently regret. I hasten to add that these practices are by no means universal and I have publicly acknowledged before, and do so again, the efforts of the industry, through the Timeshare Developers Association, working through its code of practice, to improve and maintain standards in the industry. The association's membership now represents about 60 per cent. of timeshares sold to United Kingdom consumers.
The Department of Trade and Industry has actively tried to promote the development of these standards. For example, in 1987, we produced a leaflet for consumers entitled, "Your place in the sun—or is it?" It warned people interested in timeshare developments to be wary of prizes, discounts and half-price offers—
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that the Minister, quite properly, wanted time in the debate to reply to it. I have sat here for the best part of the debate and can remember no hon. Member mentioning timeshare. If the Minister wants to make a statement on that subject, he should take time out of the proper schedule of the House, not out of a private Member's debate.
Mr. Forth: I am trying to develop an argument that combines the provision of information, on which I have just touched, with a reference I am about to make to the role of the Office of Fair Trading, which is directly relevant to consumer protection. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, we shall get there fairly quickly.
600
I was talking about the information provided by my Department's leaflet, of which we have now distributed about 650,000 copies. Thus far have we gone with information, but from time to time that can be deemed not enough, and this is a case to which that applies.
I have therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to conduct a review of the whole range of timeshare problems which will cover marketing and other issues to do with United Kingdom properties advertised here, and overseas properties wherever they are promoted, and which may involve a review of legislative and self-regulatory controls. The Office of Fair Trading would then come up with such recommendations as it saw fit. The director general agrees that this is an appropriate time to examine this problem, which has recently caused some anxiety to consumers.
This is a good example of the recognition of a need for such action, and I am delighted to say that the director general has agreed to involve his staff and expertise in it. I look forward to receiving his conclusions early in the new year.
Another matter that is repeatedly mentioned is safety. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the home accident surveillance system, the provision of statistics by our hospitals which give a firm, factual basis from which to launch policy developments. It is not often appreciated that accidents in and around the home result in about 5,000 deaths a year—as many as, or more than, occur on the roads. About 3 million people receive injuries serious enough to receive medical treatment.
We must not only recognise the problem but develop policies and approaches to deal with it. This is being done. The United Kingdom legal system governing consumer safety provides a level of protection equal to, and probably better than, that in most other countries. Many speakers today have referred to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which introduced significant changes in the law and resulted in major improvements for the consumer. The introduction of the general safety requirement in that law means that it is now a criminal offence to supply a consumer product that is not reasonably safe. This general duty has many advantages over an approach that relies on detailed and restrictive regulations covering individual products. For example, it means that the enforcement officers can take action when a dangerous consumer product appears on the market.
Mr. Michael Brown: There is a problem with that legislation because it is not always applied in a logical fashion. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister of Health is considering using the powers in that Act to ban a certain brand of smokeless tobacco. When my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was Under-Secretary of State, she acknowledged that cigarettes were more dangerous than the product that my hon. Friend the Minister proposes to ban under the legislation. Will my hon. Friend urge some caution about the way in which that legislation is sometimes used, because there is not always logic about the way in which it is employed?
Mr. Forth: If I did not know my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) a bit better, I would suspect that he was being mischievous because he is trying to draw me into commenting on

601
something that another Department may be doing. If it is using the excellent legislation that I am describing to the House, so much the better, but my hon. Friend must not try to draw me into the substance of a decision that may well be made by another Department. That Department is quite capable of coming to the right conclusion on the matter and I am sure that my hon. Friend is giving it as much advice as he can.
Several hon. Members have mentioned labelling. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 fully recognises the importance of adequate warnings and instructions in relation to the safety of products. The guidance given to the courts on the factors that they should take into account in deciding whether a product is unsafe specifically includes both the manner in which goods are marketed and the instructions or warnings that are given with the products. To support this feature of the law, my Department published an authoritative guide to producing better instructions and warnings for consumer products. That is an important area but it is not often highlighted and has not been referred to during the debate.
Giving people adequate and workable instructions on the use of products can make a considerable contribution to their safe use. We continue widely to promote that practice among manufacturers and designers, and I hope that even in the courts we will see the kind of best practice set out in the guide regarded as a benchmark for considering cases.
The Consumer Protection Act also introduced changes to the law on product liability. The system of strict liablility means that it will be much easier for people injured by defective products to obtain redress through the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) rightly said, there is now increasing redress available other than through the full court procedure. For example, there is arbitration and the small claims procedures, and in many ways we are rapidly improving the way in which consumers, as individuals or through the many consumer organisations, can seek and obtain redress. Experience of these features of United Kingdom criminal and civil law will do much to deter those who may be tempted to supply goods that do not come up to adequate safety levels.
The motion calls on the Government fully to implement the EC product liability directive. Hon. Members may have seen reports that the EC Commission had expressed some dissatisfaction with the way in which our Consumer Protection Act implements the directive, particularly over the so-called "Development risks defence." The Government have made it clear that the Commission's objections will be considered carefully but that we believe that the Act properly implements the directive. I can confirm that the Commission has now written formally to the United Kingdon setting out its concerns, but it is usual practice, and I propose to stick to it, to preserve the confidentiality of these exchanges. However, it will be obvious from what I have said that dialogue is continuing.
Mr. Favell: Is it not true to say that we are one of only three of the 12 EC countries that have implemented the directive?
Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point because it gives me the chance to say that we are way ahead of most of the other member states on most of the directives, not just in that regard but also in effective implementation. We tend to differ greatly from most of the
602
other member states in the extent to which we comply with and implement directives effectively and in detail. We do that through our excellent system of trading standard officers who are independent of Government and report to local government. It is not always easy for central Government to deal with that system. Given his background, my hon. Friend well understands that our compliance with EC directives is certainly as good as that of any member state and better than that of most member states. In that respect, we are among the best Europeans, and we can be proud and happy about that.
The hon. Lady asked for the speedy implementation of the product safety directive. She knows that a proposal for an EC general product safety directive was tabled by the Commission at the recent consumer council meeting in Luxembourg. The hon. Lady spoke about that. That was the first time that Ministers had been given an opportunity to discuss this very wide-ranging proposal, and it was clear at the meeting that much more work will need to be done before the draft is anywhere near ready for detailed consideration, never mind implementation. We and other member states expressed varying degrees of reservation about the scope of that draft and about the powers proposed in it. It is in the very early stages and it would be quite unreasonable at this time to expect us to approve it or seek to amend it in any detail. It has started its procedure, and we shall work with other member states to see that it develops in a workable and effective way.
I should like to make another point about general safety matters and about the sort of action that we can take when we think that it is necessary. I have mentioned the provision of information and the general legal framework. We take action against individual products or producers when a serious safety hazard comes to our attention and we are persuaded about the nature of the hazard. I shall give two examples. In recent months, we have banned, as we are able to do under the legislation, two products. One was called "Crazy Hands", a novelty toy. We thought that there was a danger that young children might swallow it and choke. We also banned three-wheel all-terrain vehicles which were imported from the United States where they had a track record of being extremely dangerous. We thought that we were justified in banning them, and we did.
Evidence shows that most accidents are caused riot necessarily by faulty products but by people's behaviour. They sometimes use them in a wrong, ill-informed or occasionally irresponsible way. Therefore, we are keen to inform people of the hazards that they may face. As one of my hon. Friends has said, we have conducted and will continue to conduct campaigns covering toy safety, the safety of electric blankets and child safety. We also run an annual fireworks campaign and a Christmas campaign.
I was recently involved in launching a campaign housed in a hazard dome. It is an imaginative and sophisticated exhibition and it will tour the United Kingdom. We hope that eventually it will be brought to millions of people. The exhibition clearly illustrates in an imaginative and exciting way the sort of hazards that can exist even in the home and the measures that people can take to avoid them. That is the sort of positive and helpful contribution that we can make to provide information about hazards and the way in which we want to tackle them.
Mr. Michael Brown: I presume that the hazards to which my hon. Friend refers are health hazards. Why is his

603
Department responsible for those while the Minister of Health is responsible for the hazard that I mentioned earlier?
Mr. Forth: I see that I have not deterred my hon. Friend. He well knows that the hazards I am describing can result in accidents in and around the home. Details of those accidents are provided by our excellent information system which is based on hospital figures. We take steps to inform people about them so that they may be able to avoid accidents.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and some of my hon. Friends, spoke about environmental implications. Of course we recognise the importance of consumers being fully informed about the environmental effects of products and services in order, if nothing else, for the market to operate effectively. We are aware of the growing interest in labelling as a constructive way in which one can tackle the problem. We welcome the moves that industry is already making to provide and improve information about the environmental impact of its products. In the Government's view, the voluntary approach is the right one, but we are keeping the situation closely under review and looking carefully at the problems that labelling poses and at the experience of other countries which have set up national schemes.
We are discussing the level of interest in such schemes with representatives of consumers, producers and retailers, not least because of the need to respond to likely moves within the European Community. However, I stress that the issues involved are not simple. It is not easy to identify what is or what is not environmentally beneficial, not to identify straightforward ways to describe these problems to the user. It is not always clear how best to illustrate or describe these factors on packaging, sometimes of small articles. We are still at the early stages, and there are many ways to identify the best ways of communicating to the consumer the environmental impact or implication of the products that the consumer is being offered in the market place.
Reference has been made to the importance of informative food labelling to help consumers to choose a healthy diet. Food labels are already required to show the name or description of the food, an ingredients list, the date of minimum durability and the name and address of the responsible packer or seller. In addition, where appropriate, details of storage instructions for use and place of origin must be given.
Food labelling is kept under regular review and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food responds to the need for changes as they arise. For example, it has drawn up and circulated guidelines on nutrition labelling that aim to standardise the presentation of nutrition information on food labels so that consumers can compare products more easily and to help them to choose a balanced diet. The guidelines have been widely adopted and the Ministry will continue to encourage their use until EC-wide proposals are agreed. In many ways, these proposals follow closely the United Kingdom lead and the Ministry will be able to draw on the United Kingdom experience during negotiations in Brussels.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also recognises the need to provide consumer informative
604
material about food and to help them make best use of information on food labels. In particular, it has recently issued a revised version of its free booklet called "Look at the Label", which explains the meaning of the terms used in labelling.
In all these ways we have provided a framework for the general approach that we are taking on consumer protection and, in detail, shown how some have been able to work, either in terms of provision of information or in terms of specific cases such as the banning of the products that are mentioned.
Mr. Dalyell: As five different Government Departments are probably involved in the questions that I asked about greenfly, could we not have some response by letter from the Departments involved?
Mr. Forth: I was going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later, but I shall do so now. I listened carefully to his, as usual, impeccably researched and briefly presented case. I undertake to ensure that not only my Department but all other Departments involved look carefully at what he said and give a considered answer. I am sure that he would not want me to give an off-the-cuff answer. We have made careful note of what he said, and Hansard will be scrutinised carefully, so he will get a full and proper response.
Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point about keeping information on food labelling to basics? I have already spoken about the Marathon bar label, which contains so much information that a safety warning would not be read by anybody. Most of that information is unintelligible, except to the most dedicated "muesli".
Mr. ForthMy hon. Friend has made an important point of which we must not lose sight, which is that a balance has to be achieved—the hon. Member for Gordon used the word "balance" and I agree with him—between providing to the consumers usable and practical information that most would be able to understand and use, and overloading a product with unintelligible information. My hon. Friend gave a good example of something that came close to the latter description. We must be careful on what we mandate or regulate for. It is much better to leave the producers to make their own decisions about what consumers can use and make the product more attractive as a result.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked about the Council of Ministers' meeting. She knows that the meeting of the Consumers Ministers covered a number of different issues, to one of which I was delighted to give my full support, that is, the effort to give consumers and their organisations a better voice in the European Community. I have met and continue to meet most of the main consumer organisations here in the United Kingdom, and we are better served than almost any other country by such organisations—a factor of which we can be proud, although we often take it for granted. It meant that when I went to the Council of Ministers' meeting I was able to support any moves—Commissioner Van Miert is interested in this—to promote the representation of consumer bodies in the European Community in the most effective way.
I was also able to reach agreement with the other member states on the directive covering consumer credit, which will be an important step forward in making the

605
information available right across the Community, to all of our consumers. We agreed on continued support into 1990 for the European level of the hospital information system referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) in order to provide, Europe-wide, a firm statistical basis for carrying forward the detailed consumer protection policy in which we are all interested. We are interested in a policy which is on a firm statistical basis, which is why we are happy to carry along with us the other member states of the Community in continuing to fund that policy.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked about something that I was unable to support, and I want to tell her why, because this is an important point. It concerned the draft resolution for the relaunch of consumer policy in the Community. There was much in the proposal that I was able to support, in particular the principle that I have just outlined—that consumers' views should be taken into account in policy development. I was also committed to the need for effective representation in all Community institutions. However, I was unable to support the resolution because of the one important point that the presidency insisted on including references to quality. The United Kingdom is fully committed to the principle that consumers have the right to effective and accurate information to ensure that they are able to make fully informed choices about the products and services available to them, but we cannot agree that it is necessary, practical or desirable for the Community to relaunch a Community consumer policy programme—
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), having given the Chamber the opportunity to discuss the subject, has the right to reply. As the debate has to finish at 7 o'clock, may I ask you to protect that right and ensure that she has sufficient time?
Mr. Speaker: That right depends on the availability of time. I understood that the hon. Lady wanted only two minutes to answer.
Mr. Forth: I will be guided by what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to reply to as many as possible of the points that have been made. It would not be ungallant of me to point out that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East spent 50 minutes introducing her motion, and I hoped to take full advantage of the time to reply.
The Government's policy is based on a firm, practical and pragmatic approach which strikes a balance between a legal framework, effective action within that framework and dealing with these important matters on a case-by-case basis. I shall look carefully at what has been said during the debate, but I hope that the House will agree that the motion is an unjustified criticism of Government policy. Therefore, if there is a vote, I ask the House to reject the motion.
6.57 pm
Ms. Quin: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
I have listened carefully to the various contributions and in particular welcome those of my hon. Friends who spoke in support of my motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) gave the House the benefit of his experience of dealing with consumer affairs in government. I am glad that he reinforced the point that, under this Government, consumer affairs have been downgraded, a trend which Labour is pledged to reverse. I understand that the hospital safety certificates, to which hon. Members referred, were introduced by my right hon. Friend in 1975, not by the Government.
The Minister, not surprisingly, strongly defended his position, but I hope that he has listened to some of the comments made by his hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) who spoke strongly in favour of the EEC package holiday directive, which the Government are blocking.
Consumers have a choice in what they buy, but they cannot exercise it properly in the absence of clear and helpful labelling. Such labelling should be independently monitored because voluntary self-regulation will not be good enough.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) defended the Government's position on certain vested-interest groups and said that the Government were not in the business of votes. The Government will not get many votes unless consumers believe that the Government are taking their interests far more seriously than their record over the past 10 years suggests.
I have listened carefully to all the interesting contributions that have been made, but I still believe that my motion is valid.
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your protection. I came third in the ballot for private Members' motions, but today Conservative Members have wasted time. Government Whips have been drumming up support. When I look about the Chamber, I see that there is a sole Scottish Minister and no pit bull terrier from the Scottish National party. Is this another example of the alliance between the blue Tories and the tartan Tories to keep issues affecting Scotland off the political agenda—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member came third in the ballot; the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) might feel slightly more aggrieved because he came second.

Televising of Proceedings of the House
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move his motion, I should like to say a word about the procedure to be followed. Until 10 o'clock there will be a general debate, during which all amendments may be referred to. At 10 o'clock I shall call, first, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) formally to move amendment (c) relating to a dedicated unedited channel, and, secondly, the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) formally to move amendment (n) relating to proposed restrictions on the type of picture that may be shown. I shall then put the Question on the main Question.
Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I appeal for short speeches so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.
7.1 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 141).
In February 1988, the House voted in favour of the principle of an experiment in the televising of its proceedings. It set up a Select Committee, which I had the honour to chair, to consider the way in which the experiment should be conducted. The Committee's report, which is before the House today, is the product of a substantial measure of agreement within the Committee.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be a great help for the House if we could know whether the Leader of the House, by leave of the House, will be speaking again at the end, because it could reduce the number of interruptions in his speech if it is known that he will be replying to the debate at the end.
Mr. Wakeham: If any hon. Member wishes me to answer any query, I shall be present and shall seek to intervene at the end of the debate, if that is for the convenience of the House.
There was a substantial measure of agreement within the Committee. That seemed so unlikely when we started work that the fact is well worth recording. It was an unusually large Committee—of 20 Members—combining not only different political views but very different views on televising the House, yet we were able to agree our report with only one dissenting voice—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet North (Mr. Gale), who wanted to approach the problem in a completely different way, which he will set out later if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. A wide range of views was expressed in the Committee about the rules of coverage, and I shall say something about that later.
The essence of our proposals is that the House should retain overall control, including control of the rules of coverage. The broadcasters will gain access to the signal at a fair price, and an independent company will be given a prestige contract to produce the pictures. The viewing public will be able to see the House at work, and the taxpayer will not have to pay for it.
The administrative arrangements may seem complex, but I will explain them as concisely as I can. The basic idea is a partnership between the House of Commons, the BBC
608
and the IBA through a joint company, which we have called the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit. The unit will provide the equipment for the experiment and employ an independent operator to produce the signal. It will recover its running costs by selling the signal to the broadcasters at a fair price. The Select Committee will monitor the experiment, and it will be assisted by an Officer of the House, whom we have called the Supervisor of Broadcasting, part of whose job it will be to ensure that these arrangements work smoothly. There will also be a "customers' committee", representing all the consumers of the signal, which will act as an informal channel of communication.
Eight remote-controlled cameras will be mounted just under the Galleries and will be as unobtrusive as we can make them. We went into lighting with some care, as many hon. Members feel passionately about the subject. Clearly, we shall need extra lighting or our constituents will see very unflattering pictures of us, with heavy shadows and bags under our eyes, but we must avoid intolerable heat and glare. We concluded that the best solution for the experiment would be to install eight space lights, which simulate the effect of chandeliers, and which would be suspended from the ceiling of the Chamber. A number of members of the Committee have seen the proposed lights in operation and have found them acceptable. We also recommend that the strip lighting under the Galleries should be upgraded to provide some additional light on the Back Benches.
The House will expect me to speak in some detail about the rules of coverage since our proposals have been given a hostile reception. Those who have expressed their views most vociferously are the representatives of the media, who can hardly be said to be disinterested observers. I say that not in any pejorative sense but am merely underlining the fact that the interests and perspectives of the House and the media are different.
Let me outline briefly the rules of coverage which we propose, the considerations which led us to our conclusions and why I believe that most of the criticism of them is misguided. We thought it right to lay down at the outset a statement of objectives to guide the director on duty. This, in many ways, is the key to an understanding of the rules of coverage, so I will quote it in full:
"The director should seek, in close collaboration with the Supervisor of Broadcasting, to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House."
The words
"a full, balanced, fair and accurate account"
were carefully chosen to describe the type of coverage which the Select Committee believed to be desirable. It is, of course, precisely in the interpretation of this phrase that the differences of perspective have emerged between the broadcasters and the Committee. The broadcasters—for perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons—see it as their right and duty to film what happens in the Chamber in exactly the same way as they would an election meeting or party conference, with full journalistic licence to cut away from the speaker who has the floor and to paint an impressionistic picture by the use of a range of different camera shots and editorial techniques.
By contrast, the Select Committee felt—some Members perhaps more strongly than others—that the purpose of television coverage should be to provide something like an "electronic Hansard", designed to provide viewers with a

609
factual and objective visual record of our proceedings—of speeches and statements made, of questions asked and answered and of decisions taken.
I turn now to the detailed rules of coverage which we recommend to support and implement the broad statement of objectives. I think that even the broadcasters accept, albeit reluctantly, some of the restrictions we recommend, such as the ban on the filming of the public Galleries. We also propose a number of specific guidelines for the director to observe, chief among which are the designation of a standard head and shoulders shot, limited use of wide-angle shots, a strict limitation on the use of reaction shots and a prohibition on the use of split-screen and panning shots.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That sounds a bit like state censorship to me. Is the Leader of the House telling us that we shall not be able to have a three-shot of the Social Democratic party? Is he saying that if the Leader of the SDP decides to cross the Floor and join the Tory party the camera will not be allowed to pan across and show him disappearing into the arms of the Prime Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these restrictions had been applied to the Spanish Parliament some time ago we would have finished up with a shot not of the fellow with the gun in his hand but of the Speaker with his hands up?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a pretty old joke. The hon. Gentleman will make his speech in his own way, but the activities to which he refers do not seem to me to be the proceedings of the House of Commons; at least I hope that they are not. This experiment is to televise the proceedings of the House of Commons.
I believe that these guidelines, taken together, flow logically from our broad approach to television coverage encapsulated in the statement of objectives to which I have already referred. It is only fair at this point to mention that some members of the Committee would have preferred tighter guidelines whereas the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and his hon. Friends argued for a more liberal regime. Nevertheless, I believe that what we have recommended in the report represents the closest thing to a consensus about the rules of coverage that it was possible to achieve among a group of 20 Members representing such a wide spectrum of views on the principle of televising.
I now turn to our recommendations for the treatment of incidents of disorder, which have been the subject of particular controversy. As we say in the report:
"Our overall approach to this matter is governed by our absolute conviction that deliberate misconduct designed to secure televised publicity ought not to achieve its aim".
I do not think that I need to dwell on disorder in the Galleries, as it is generally agreed that the Galleries should not be televised at all. Disorder on the Floor of the House is an altogether more delicate question. None the less, starting from the proposition which I have just quoted, I believe that it was right to recommend that, in cases of disorder, the director should not focus on the Member or Members involved.
Of course, as we recognise in the report, there will inevitably be cases where the director will be unsure as to what response is required of him in a given situation. That is precisely why we urge Members to
"exercise some tolerance whilst any initial uncertainties over the interpretation of the guidelines are resolved".
610
I am quite sure that, provided the director has attempted in good faith to apply the guidelines in conformity with the spirit of the statement of objectives, any misjudgments by him will be treated sympathetically by the Supervisor of Broadcasting and the Select Committe.
Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman should not make too much of this issue, because that is not really what it is all about. If an incident were taking place on the Floor of the House, for example, if the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had seized the Mace and was swinging it about his head, would the person doing the commentary say, "Although we cannot show you this, the right hon. Member for Henley is now swinging the Mace about and he has hit three Members"?
Mr. Wakeham: Overfamiliarity with the Mace by hon. Members on either side of the House would not be shown on television in the normal course of events. As for what the commentator says, I have no plans for any restrictions. The main point is that we do not believe that those who seek to engage in such activities should be seen on television if that is their objective.
The main aim of the relationship between the Supervisor of Broadcasting and the director is to ensure that any mistakes are not repeated. I should stress at this point that, as the report makes clear, we are dealing with an experiment, and the guidelines we have recommended are for the start of the experiment. They could be modified, subject to the Select Committee's approval, as the experiment evolves. If the broadcasters wish to make representations to the Committee, they are, of course, perfectly free to do so. Any such representations will be carefully considered.
Finally, on the rules of coverage, I should like to deal with one argument which sums up the opposition to our proposals—why will the television viewer not be able to see what a person sitting in the Gallery can see? My answer is that the television viewer is going to see only what the broadcasters choose to broadcast; and, even if we had a dedicated channel, the viewer would see only the shot that the director selects. A visitor in the Gallery can allow his gaze to wander over any part of the Chamber, however irrelevant to the proceedings, or even out of the window. The basic premise on which this argument is based is, therefore, clearly spurious.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: My point is referred to in the report. Assuming that all eight cameras will be under the Galleries, does this mean that any hon. Member who, for whatever reason—this has happened during my time in the House—chooses to speak, within order, from the Upper Galleries will never stand a chance of being shown on television to his or her constituents?
Mr. Wakeham: I remember Mr. Speaker making a statement some time ago when he said that he would not normally call someone from an Upper Gallery. If there is a problem, we can consider it during the experiment. As it is envisaged, it would not be possible for such a person to be shown on television.
I believe that the rules that we have proposed offer a sensible middle path between the position in the other place, where the less-heated debate makes it possible not to have any specific rules of coverage, and the very much

611
more restrictive rules imposed in Canada, which we considered unnecessary. As such, they provide a scheme that reflects most Members' views of the purpose of television coverage.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to take up the right hon. Gentleman's time. Has he any idea of the costs of running the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit and the costs for the operators?
Mr. Wakeham: The cost to the Commons will be about £500,000, of which some £300,000 will be for the archives. The cost to the Commons of the broadcasting part will be relatively small. The other costs will be borne by the broadcasters. The figure is in the report, which I think shows that the cost of the experiment will be about £500,000 for each of them. That is the sort of amount that the broadcasters will contribute. It will depend on how they run and staff the operation.
Mr. Robin Corbett: The Leader of the House will remember that paragraph 59 of the report refers to assistance for the deaf. Does he agree with me that every possible pressure should be put on those responsible during this experiment to have at least subtitling so that those who are denied access to so much of our television can share in this experiment?
Mr. Wakeham: There have been a number of representations on that subject by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). We are certainly doing what we can to provide that assistance. I entirely agree with that objective.
As I said, the rules provide a scheme that reflects most Members' views of the purpose of television coverage. In doing so, they cut across the desire of the broadcasters for a more liberal regime conducive to what they regard as good television, but the very phrase "good television" gives the game away as it accords a higher priority to entertainment than information. I cannot therefore recommend acceptance of the selected amendment relating to the rules of coverage. If it were agreed to, there would be no restrictions on the size of the shot that the director could use; he would have complete freedom to take the camera off the Member speaking to show anything else that was happening in the Chamber, whether it was relevant to the proceedings of the House or not; and he could pan along the Benches at any time to show which Members were present and which were not. These do not seem to me to be suitable guidelines to start the experiment with, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
While the rules of coverage are a matter for us, the use of the signal in programmes is quite properly a matter for the broadcasters, provided they do not use it in light entertainment programmes, political satire or party political broadcasts.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not want to delay the Leader of the House in respect of amendment (b), but does he agree that some hon. Members think that the availability of the signal is a matter not just for the broadcasters, but for this nation and this House, although the Select Committee may not have thought so? Will the Leader of the House at least concede that there is that point of view?
Mr. Wakeham: I concede, of course, that the coverage and the way in which it is shown are matters for the House at the right and proper time, but the task with which the Select Committee was charged was to draw up the rules for an experiment in the televising of the proceedings of the House. It was not charged with considering the whole question of the way in which the proceedings should be dealt with. When I say that the rules of coverage are a matter for us, I am referring to the Select Committee and to our debate this evening, which is dealing with the report of the Select Committee. The other matters are important, but we shall come to them at another time.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In reference to the last point, I agree that the House could not possibly dictate to the broadcasters on the precise use they make of the signal coming from the electronic Hansard during the experiment. But how this House votes after the experiment will be determined, to a large extent, by the use the television companies make of the programmes and the use they make of the signals, especially regionally. Although we cannot control the signal, the television companies cannot ignore the feelings in this House.
Mr. Wakeham: That is absolutely true of various aspects of the experiment, especially the area with which I am about to deal—the use the companies make of the proceedings of Committees. Although we cannot dictate which parts of Committee proceedings they broadcast, the Select Committee very much hopes that the broadcasters will make good and adequate use of the Committee proceedings, as well as of the House generally, so that the experiment can be evaluated properly by all of us. Our role is to provide a signal and some guidelines, not to interfere or to attempt to dictate the way in which the signal is used.
The coverage of Committees is an important matter and I underline the importance our report attached to the work of both the Select and Standing Committees. We reached the conclusion—
Mr. Sydney Bidwell rose—
Mr. Wakeham: No, I will not give way because I want to talk about Committees.
We reached the conclusion that Committee coverage could not be approached in the same way as coverage of the Chamber. The broadcasters are willing to finance complete coverage of proceedings in the Chamber from the end of Prayers to the Adjournment on every sitting day during the experiment, but they are not prepared to finance complete coverage of every meeting of every Committee during that period. As there is no public money available to subsidise Committee coverage, the only resources available are those that individual broadcasting organisations are willing to find to pay for coverage which they wish to use. The televising of Committees can, therefore, be organised only in response to demand from the broadcasters. That may be disagreeable—and I know that some members of the Select Committee would wish it otherwise—but it is a sad fact which we cannot ignore.
The report makes clear our hope that the importance that we attach to the coverage of Committees will be fully reflected in the broadcasters' programme plans, although realism lends us to warn the House not to raise its expectations too high, particularly as regards live coverage. What matters above all is that there should be enough coverage, of a representative nature, during the

613
experiment to enable the House to decide eventually whether televising of Committees should become permanent. On that, the broadcasters have at least said that they will try their best.
If the House agrees to the motion we are debating, broadcasting will begin with the State Opening of the new Session. We recommend that the experiment should continue until the end of July next year, which is long enough to give television a fair trial. Shortly before the end of the experiment, the House will be invited to decide whether televising the proceedings should continue on a permanent basis.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the televising equipment be subject to the direction of the Chairman of the Select Committee, bearing in mind that it is essential that the Chairman can see all the members of the Committee and that the members of the Committee can see all the witnesses to whom questions are being put? If the cameras prevent that from happening, is it not essential that the Chairman of the Committee should have the power to give directions to remove cameras and lighting from their position, if they are preventing the Committee, in his judgment, from doing its job?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that subject. As the House has approved this report and, therefore, the experiment in the televising of the proceedings of the House, it must be only in the most exceptional circumstances that the Chairman of a Select Committee would seek to put the cameras out. If the Committee went into secret session, the cameras would, of course, be put out. If there are any difficulties, we should remember that this is an experiment. The Select Committee would certainly look into any problem that arose to see whether we could find a satisfactory solution.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a question about paragraph 87, which deals with the live coverage of Committees away from Westminster. Can we expect to see the televising of the Scottish Grand Committee sessions which are held in Edinburgh?
Mr. Wakeham: As I have said, the televising of Select Committees, Grand Committees and anything other than the proceedings of the House will be done on demand by the broadcasters who wish to do it. I understand that the broadcasters have said that the Scottish Grand Committee when it meets in Edinburgh is one of the Committees that they would very much like to broadcast. I anticipate, therefore, that that will happen and I hope very much that it will happen during the experiment. It is important that the House has the opportunity to see on television all the different aspects of our work, so that we have a better basis on which to make the final judgment, which is the most important judgment in a way, some time next year.
Dr. Godman: We might even see the Nationalists.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to raise too many hopes in these matters.
Amendment (c) tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would prevent the experiment from going ahead unless a dedicated television channel were made available. I think that every hon. Member would agree that if the House is to be televised, the availability of a dedicated channel would be the best way of solving the difficult questions of editing, selection
614
and balance which trouble many of us. But the House must recognise that providing a dedicated channel on a high-powered satellite which could transmit a signal into people's homes would significantly increase the cost of the experiment to the broadcasters. To impose that requirement on them might well result in the experiment not taking place at all. So while I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's objective, I do not think that we should allow the best to be the enemy of the good.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: In that case, why did the Committee not recommend that the proceedings of the House should be shown on the internal monitors we have in our Committee Rooms? It recommended only that the proceedings should be shown in the Division lobbies. Surely it would be simple to broadcast the proceedings in every office of the building.
Mr. Wakeham: It is not technically possible to do that and it is certainly impossible to do it in time to conduct an experiment that will begin in the autumn. It is, of course, possible to do so in the long term, if that is what the House wants, but it raises big issues. Some hon. Members, who may be very much in favour of televising the House, would be passionately against closed circuit television in offices and around the House. It is a matter to which we shall, no doubt, return another day.
The House has decided, after prolonged consideration, that there should be an experiment in the broadcasting of its proceedings by television. The motion before the House will enable the experiment to take place. I invite the House to support the motion.
7.29 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I strongly support the motion that we agree with the report of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House. The arrangements suggested for the experimental televising of our proceedings are not exactly the ideal that I or my Labour colleagues on the Committee would have preferred, but I believe that the proposals are workable and that they meet the legitimate doubts and reservations that were expressed in the debate in February 1988 when the principle of televising was accepted by a majority of 54 votes.
It is only right that before dealing with the proposals in the report I should pay tribute to the work that has gone into its preparation. In particular, I congratulate our Clerks who have managed to boil down 15 months of Committee proceedings, hearings, technical demonstrations, an overseas visit and more than 250 written submissions into a 33-page report which is easy to read and understand. I am also grateful to our technical advisers and Officers of the House who contributed to assessing and demonstrating the practicalities of what was being proposed.
Curiously enough, I should also like to thank my fellow members of the Select Committee who put in so much effort and even made the sacrifice of a visit to Canada, during the recess. I pay tribute to the eight Conservative Members on the Committee who originally voted against televising the House but who accepted the February 1988 decision of the House and now support the recommendations for the experiment. I personally thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) whose

615
practical experience as a producer of television current affairs programmes was of great help to me and to other Members.
Finally, and even more novel, I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who, having voted against televising, nevertheless worked extremely hard, both in chairing our proceedings and in private, to put together practical proposals that would be acceptable to the House. The extent of his success was amply demonstrated last Thursday when the remarkable edifice that he had constructed was topped out by the Prime Minister's announcement of her support. Some of his Cabinet colleagues are green with envy and want to know how he got such a public statement of support, but, whatever the explanation, all this means that whatever fate may befall him in the threatened Government reshuffle, the Lord President will go into the history books as the Leader of the House who brought television cameras into the Chamber. I think that he will pleased with that.
This is an historic development because it will permit the people of this country to see as well as to hear their elected representatives at work. With the exception of a number of what might be described as wholly unreconstructed exclusionists, no one can object in principle to being shown on television if we concede the principle of being reported in Hansard, misreported in newspapers and heard on the radio.
However, a substantial number of hon. Members have legitimate practical doubts and reservations about the impact of the cameras on the workings of this place and about the trivialising capacity of television. Much of that doubt and uncertainty springs from a politician's distrust of the news media—distrust between the reporter and the would-be reported. There will always be tension between politicians and journalists and I believe that there should always be that tension between us. It is not the job of journalists to give us an easy time but we can and do expect them to be reasonably fair. In relation to what happens in the House and its Committees, we also expect them to be reasonably representative and not unfairly selective. They must try to maintain a reasonable balance between the parties, between the Front and Back Benches and between Members from different parts of the country. As the report makes clear, to assist them in that task it is intended that the House will monitor their output.
The Select Committee's report is designed to secure our legitimate concerns without trying in turn to deprive the television broadcasters of the rights that they must have in a democracy, because a Parliament has no more right than a Government to tell broadcasters what to do.
The first proposition in the report is to protect the interests and integrity of the House by putting the whole operation of the cameras under the control of a House of Commons Broadcasting Unit, a Supervisor of Broadcasting employed by the House, and a Select Committee. That means that the broadcasters will not control the signal that is made available to them, but for the period of the experiment the broadcasters will foot most of the bill and provide the equipment. For any permament televising arrangement, the Select Committee believes that the House should establish a broadcasting unit as a Department of the House—as an electronic
616
Hansard—making the signal available to those who want to use it and maintaining an archive to which anyone should have access.
We have looked into the technical requirements for the introduction of remote control cameras in the House and are satisfied that the necessary improvements in lighting can be achieved without unacceptable levels of glare or heat.
Although other members of the Select Committee are satisfied that the arrangements for the remote control of the cameras will work, I still have some residual doubts about the speed of response of the cameras, especially at Question Time, and about whether they will pick up Members quickly enough. However, that is something that will become clear during the experiment.
Many hon. Members have been rightly concerned to ensure that there is television coverage of Select Committees and Standing Committees, including the Scottish Grand Committee. We have looked carefully into that and propose various experimental arrangements that we believe will prove acceptable and from which a great deal should be learnt before the experiment comes to an end. Of course, we cannot force the broadcasters to show the proceedings of Select or Standing Committees, but in our meetings with them we have emphasised our wish for such coverage. In any case, evidence from the United States suggests that Select Committee proceedings at least are likely to prove attractive to the broadcasters. They have done so there and there is no reason why they should not here.
We have also placed great emphasis on the need for coverage by the broadcasters of matters raised, whether in the Chamber, Select Committees or Standing Committees, which are of particular interest to viewers in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. That is likely to be of particular importance to Back Benchers. The Select Committee pressed the broadcasters hard to ensure that they would be able to cope technically with the additional traffic that would result from more regional coverage. Assurances were given by the broadcasters and we look to them to honour those assurances. We have emphasised to the broadcasters that their regional coverage during the experimental period will be a major determining factor for many hon. Members when the House considers whether to have the cameras in permanently.
Although the House will have direct control over the signal that is made available for both broadcasting and recording, we will not have similar control over what use the broadcasters will make of that signal. We can restrict the use of that signal—
Mr. Bidwell: I intervene now for the reason that I sought to intervene during the speech of the Leader of the House. Many of us who have been doubtful about televising over the years and who are shifting our view about it and will be greatly governed by this debate when deciding which way to vote are concerned not so much about the cameras being switched on but the conditions under which the cameras will be switched off. As I understand it, what is strange about the report is the role of the Chair—of you, Mr. Speaker—and the traditions that we have given you and that you have exercised fairly—mostly—over the years and the extent to which, if the House were—
Mr. Tony Banks: Switch him off, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bidwell: I am concerned about what you, Mr. Speaker, would do, but you are much too friendly for me to admonish you in any way. I am concerned about control of the cameras when the House is suspended, as it has been, mostly as a result of exercises that have already been referred to, such as the throwing of tear gas bombs that burnt a hole in the carpet. I am concerned that there seems to be no reference in the report to the role of the Chair in decision-making about when the cameras should be switched on and switched off. That point completely puzzles me.
Mr. Dobson: The report deals with that point, stating that it would be best if you, Mr. Speaker, did not have the facility to turn off the cameras because there would be great shouts, cries and rows about those occasions on which you chose to do so and, probably even more importantly, about those occasions when you did not. We should not like that responsibility to fall upon the Chair in such circumstances.
The one thing that we can do with the signal is to restrict its use, and we should restrict it in some ways. For example, as the Leader of the House has already said, the Select Committee proposed that the signal should not be used in advertisements, party political broadcasts or comedy programmes or any combination of the three, but we cannot insist that broadcasters use material which they, in their editorial judgment, do not want to use. The House can reasonably expect that broadcasters will make more use of actuality from these proceedings than they do of the still photograph with voice-over, which is what they are reduced to at present.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned that broadcasters may be happy, or at least willing, to obey the new rules during the experimental period and then, should the House decide to have cameras permanently, they would go wild and ignore the rules. We ought to have a standing Select Committee to ensure that the rules are kept both during the experimental period and afterwards, should the House decide to keep the cameras in permanently.
Mr. Spearing: The House may know that I was a member of the first Select Committee which dealt with sound broadcasting. We developed a very satisfactory code of practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that, at least to start with, it might be a good thing for decisions to be on a sessional basis if the television cameras became a permanent feature—for very good procedural reasons?
Mr. Dobson: I am not sure whether a sessional basis would be the right one, but we would need to make the continuing broadcasting of the House conditional upon the rules being kept.
That brings me to the present rules on broadcasting. I am a fan of the "Today in Parliament" programme and an avowed enemy of "Yesterday in Parliament". Therefore, I welcome the undertakings given by the BBC as outlined in paragraph 56 of our report, and the hope expressed there that these will be adopted by the other broadcasters. I hope that the BBC will apply them throughout its organisation.
Hon. Members will note, however, that while ITV through Channel 4 is proposing a daily afternoon
618
programme including live coverage, the BBC is proposing such coverage only on Tuesdays and Thursdays at present. I hope that before the experiment begins the BBC will discover that we also meet on other days of the week. It seems to have enough people here on other days of the week.
Many hon. Members would like a dedicated channel which would provide live continuous coverage of all the proceedings of the House, and I am one such Member. The Select Committee looked into this, but our investigations have shown that there is no prospect of achieving such a dedicated channel by the beginning of the experiment. Our report suggests that the rapid developments in this field should be monitored and that the idea of a dedicated channel should be pursued and promoted.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall read to the House letters from British Aerospace which make it clear that that company is in a position to offer two options for transmission on a dedicated channel from October this year. If the Committee did not receive similar correspondence, it can only be said that it did not ask for it. If it had, it would have received the answers that I received in correspondence and telephone conversations.
Mr. Dobson: If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had read the report of the evidence, he would know that we attempted to have dealings with British Aerospace, in seeking some immediate solution to the problem of a satellite channel, but it could not deliver in time.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Ex-Nimrod equipment.
Mr. Dobson: I dispute any suggestion that British Aerospace proposed to use abandoned ex-Nimrod equipment.
There is no real prospect of one of the limited number of terrestrial channels being dedicated to the continuous coverage of the House. The only practical solution is a satellite channel. If the House decides to allow the cameras in permanently, we should be prepared to finance a dedicated satellite channel as part of our commitment to parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Those of us who did not serve on the Select Committee are grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the efforts that they made in this difficult matter. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if, in spite of his good efforts, the House rejected the Committee's proposals, it would not necessarily result in a more liberal regime? The Select Committee would have to go back and report again, which might allow a dedicated channel to emerge. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Dobson: That is certainly possible, although I am embarrassed by the fact that, having fallen behind most other Western democracies by not allowing the electors to see the elected at work, we have now also fallen behind the Soviet Union. I think that it might be best if we got on with it.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Western democracies to which he referred all have dedicated channels?
Mr. Dobson: They have all sorts of different methods of reception and, to my knowledge, not all of them have dedicated channels. The other major significant feature is that the market for satellite and cable television is very different in Canada and the United States, and at a very different stage in its development.
If we consider arrangements for the permanent televising of the House, we should accept that, if necessary, it should be paid for entirely from public funds if that would produce the best arrangements. It would surely be better to have public investment in promoting parliamentary democracy than to accept a second best that someone else was willing to finance.
One aspect of the report has already attracted considerable criticism, partly from the broadcasters but also from others. I refer to the proposed guidelines governing what may or may not be shown by the cameras. My hon. Friends and I argued that the guidelines were too restrictive and, despite the best efforts of the leader writer for The Guardian, Labour Members voted for a more relaxed approach. We accept that what happens in the Galleries should not be shown because that would lay the House open to a demo a day. It is surely right, however, that we should permit any deliberate action by an hon. Member or hon. Members on the Floor of the House that can be reported in newspapers to be shown on television. If someone behaves in a disorderly, silly or boorish manner, why should that fact be kept from the people who elected him? Evidence from abroad suggests that the voters do not like to see such behaviour and may take their vengeance at a later stage.
We should also prefer broadcasters to be permitted to show the reaction of other hon. Members to what an hon. Member is saying. That is preferable to the proposed rules in the report.
Mr. Cryer: I am interested to know why in the list of highly restrictive rules there is a rule to say that an hon. Member's papers must not be shown. Surely it would benefit the public to know if an hon. Member was reading a brief provided by a lobby organisation. That would allow the public to see not just the remote control of the cameras of the television closed shop but the remote control of hon. Members.
Mr. Dobson: There is some merit in that suggestion, but I can envisage circumstances in which an hon. Member from whatever political party might be referring to papers with a note saying, "Don't raise this unless the other lot raise it first", or words to that effect. It might be better if the information were not available.
Mr. John Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman cleared this part of his speech with the Leader of the Opposition who was not keen for the public to hear the whole of his interview the other day?
Mr. Dobson: If hon. Members had not been attending this debate, they could have listened to the Leader of the Opposition on "Wogan" this evening—fully, extensively, truly and accurately reported. There is a slight difference. In future, hon. Members will know that everything they say here may be carried unless they behave in a disorderly manner, in which case it will not be carried.
Despite my reservations, I commend the whole report to the House. I shall be voting for it. I believe strongly that it deals satisfactorily with the practical objections to
620
televising the House. What we say in the House is already reported through other news media and we should now permit its direct coverage on television. We must remember that most of what we do in this place needs to be reported if it is to have much impact. Those who report us are as much a part and parcel of the democratic process as those of us who serve in the House. We must ensure that they play their part in our democracy in a responsible way.
It could be argued that those who insisted, despite all sorts of pains and penalties, on reporting the old, undemocratic House of Commons made a greater contribution to the development of democracy than did those on whom they reported. Until then, those in power had claimed not only that ruling the country was a matter for the privileged few, but that it was only of interest to the privileged few. The journalists and the pamphleteers breached that wall of privilege.
Until the advent of modern technology we, the elected representatives, could not address directly from this House those whom we represent. Instead, we have had to rely on journalists to act as go-betweens, and on many an occasion they have been rather inadequate go-betweens. As that great democratic Socialist Aneurin Bevan pointed out when he called for the televising of the House so long ago that I was still at school, through the medium of television hon. Members can have a direct relationship with those who elect them. Neither they nor we would have to rely on the fallible intermediaries of the press. That argument still holds good.
Broadcasters must understand that the argument that television permits a direct relationship between the elected and those who elected them requires that they keep their editorialising to a minimum. That is why the continuous coverage of a dedicated channel has such appeal. Most of us accept that the news and current affairs programmes must edit what we say, but the broadcasters must behave responsibly and, in particular, keep their commentary to a minimum.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes an important point about broadcasters on current affairs programmes keeping their comments to a minimum. The premier political programme put out by Central Television—the former employers of our hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—previewed this debate last Thursday. Jon Lander introduced this place not only as "the palace of varieties" but described the
"twice weekly shoot-out at the OK corral with Ma Thatcher and the boys."
That is a description of this place from a premier television station in its main political programme of the week. If that is the style and content of what Central Television is planning, all the forebodings of my hon. Friends, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), will come to fruition. I hope that that does not come to pass.
Mr. Dobson: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's reaction to such a description. Hon. Members will no doubt keep a note of that sort of occurrence, to say the least, during the experiment. It may be that the actual portrayal of what happens in this place will slightly undermine the cowboy description.
Dr. Godman: From the answer given to my earlier question to the Leader of the House, can I assume that all hon. Members who served on the Committee are in favour

621
of televising the whole of the proceedings of, for example, the Scottish Grand Committee when it meets in Edinburgh? Those meetings last for two and a half hours.
Mr. Dobson: If the Scottish television companies want to show the whole of a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh, they can do so. It would be fatuous to suggest that we could force upon them an obligation to do so especially if, for example, the British Open were being held at St. Andrew's. I cannot imagine that it would add to the popularity of Scottish Members if their contributions were shown rather than the last few holes of the Open.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we will have to consider the way in which the television companies portray the whole of the work of Parliament, not just the exciting bits? It is interesting that the only two occasions on which the proceedings of the House have been broadcast live since I entered Parliament in 1987 have been when the House has been discussing issues in which the press are interested—the televising of Parliament and the Official Secrets Act. From the number of press in the Gallery tonight, it is clear that they have turned up because we are discussing a matter of interest to them. Many hon. Members want television to give an accurate portrayal of all the work of the House, not just the matters in which the press are interested.
Mr. Dobson: Quite unusually, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's desires. However, in a democracy we cannot insist that the broadcasters, the journalists or anyone else show what they do not think should be shown other than if it were on a dedicated channel, which most people favour as soon as it is technically possible. We must continue to bring pressure upon the broadcasters to ensure that they provide something approaching what might be described as a representative sample of what is happening in this place.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is making a point that has support on both sides of the House. A dedicated channel would avoid all those problems and must be the most desired option. The report says that while the experiment is being monitored consideration will be given to the introduction of a dedicated channel. Will my hon. Friend give a firm commitment that the next Labour Government will provide for such a channel out of funds voted by Parliament and not look around for a commercial deal with some broadcasting undertaking?
Mr. Dobson: Having taken part in the Committee's deliberations, I am reasonably convinced that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want a dedicated channel as soon as that is technically possible. Even so, it must be remembered that even if we had the power to force the provision of a dedicated channel, we would never have the power to force people to watch it. They would have the choice, and that is what we want to provide. They would probably still get the bulk of the coverage of what happens here from the news and news magazine programmes on other television channels. Nevertheless, a dedicated channel would provide the protection of ensuring that everything was shown.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his peroration. Is he aware that
622
researchers at Aston university have set up a £60,000 study into the experiment of televising Parliament, during which they will assess the behaviour, the language, the appearance and the intelligence in debate of hon. Members? Of course, Labour Members have nothing to fear from such an assessment, but has my hon. Friend considered that as the study will be carried out by a professor who specialises in television violence it may be incomplete unless a continuous feed of Parliament's activities is seen on television?
Mr. Dobson: As I have made clear, I am in favour of a dedicated channel providing full coverage as soon as that is possible. Some hon. Members would do well to fear their electors rather than a few professors from Aston university assessing their performance.
The many interventions during my speech have made it clear that there is considerable concern about the editorialising and the smart-Alicking of commentators—especially, if I may say this, of the BBC. I for one do not mind being portrayed, in Cromwell's phrase, "warts and all", but I do object to some clever dick from the BBC adding jokeshop warts to the ones that I already possess. Hon. Members will be looking carefully to ensure that what the broadcasters do during the experiment sticks very closely to the undertakings that they have given in their evidence and to the rules that we have laid down. If they do that and enter into the spirit of the experiment, as hon. Members are doing, it should work.
If what I have said by quoting various people, including Aneurin Bevan, has not entirely converted some of the doubtful Conservative Members, I put to them two soundly Tory mottos— the Churchill family motto of "Trust the People", and, if that is not good enough, they can stick with the Duke of Wellington and "Publish and be damned".
8 pm
Mr. John Biffen: The Register of Members' Interests does not disclose that I have written a book. As the book is about the House of Commons, and as its prospective sales must relate, I hope, to the growing public interest that will be engendered by television, and as this evening holds out the daunting prospect that it could be remaindered even before it is published, I thought that I should place that fact on record—at least my publisher would wish me to place that fact on record.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on giving us the chance to take a decision that will nudge further forward our experience of televising the House. It is a modest decision and it clearly has all the hallmarks of compromise. It is the classic in that sense. Also, the arch compromiser, the spectre and the moral inspirer must have been Lord Reith.
I can think of nothing more designed to dehydrate this place than the proposals in the report. I say that with no spirit of hostility but with a great sense of gratification. It is important for the House to come to a decision which clearly embraces a wide range of opinion of those who support and oppose the experiment. My right hon. Friend deserves our thanks for the skill with which he has put together a point of view that I hope will command majority support.
I am quite certain that, in the long run, the central decision cannot hold. Paragraph 26 of the report refers to a head-and-shoulders shot. That is a shampoo approach to

623
public affairs. It destroys the true character of the House of Commons. It is and always has been theatre. As long as it tries to represent the wide range of opinions that are argued outside in the saloon bar and are put in a rather different form in this place, it will retain its vitality. It must accept that the challenge of television is that it will do that with cameras. For televising to be made acceptable, we require a degree of self-restraint on the part of hon. Members and the televisers. Such self-restraint would be more difficult to secure on the part of hon. Members than of televisers. I have no doubt that it could be secured.
If Parliament wishes to retain its vitality and to secure a link and an affection with the British public, when there are plenty of other institutions seeking to rival it, it knows that it must come to terms with the most powerful element of the media. This evening we take one small step forward, but forward it is, and I hope that my right hon. Friend gets a resounding majority.
8.3 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am happy to take part in this debate, and I join with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in commending the Select Committee for the way in which it carried out its work and for its workmanlike and positive report. The experimentation arrangements have been clearly and succinctly set out. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I support the conclusions set out in the report.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are certainly prepared positively to consider the amendments. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) provides that the service should be set up in a certain way. It is of prime importance to minority parties that full on-line broadcasting should take place from day one. But I would not wish to delay the holding of an experiment on that basis. In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that he has an explanation for getting round the problem. I look forward with interest to hearing it.
The objectives are fairly set out in the report. They are to achieve a full, balanced, fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the House of Commons—an unvarnished, warts-and-all account. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will test the experiment on that basis, but we have our own perspective. We were elected under an electoral system that does not leave the composition of the House of Commons in proportion to the balance of votes cast in the election. No hon. Member needs any reminding that, in the last general election, our alliance parties, as they then were, secured about 22 per cent. of the vote and we ended up with just over 20 Members.
That puts us in a difficult and peculiar position. We are trying to reflect the views of about 7 million people who voted for us. The opportunities that are given to us in Parliament do not enable us to do that. That is no reflection on the way in which the Chair conducts the business of the House; I do not make that point at all. We are in a difficult position because we must try to give a decent account of ourselves to the people who voted for us. If there are only two dozen or so of us in terms of
624
parliamentary strength, it makes our position peculiarly difficult in terms of what we must do in facing up to broadcasting requirements.
I do not think that it is possible to discharge a responsibility to the people who voted for us in a full balanced, fair and accurate way if we are not properly treated in the allocation of broadcasting time. We do not get anything like 20 per cent. of the parliamentary opportunities under the existing conventions of the House, and that is a problem for us. We are prejudiced in the share that we get as of right in participating in the proceedings of the House.
The Procedure Committee says that it is not right to make any changes in procedure in advance of the experiment being tested. There is a certain logic in that argument but if the Procedure Committee is not prepared to admit any changes to try to make sure that the balance of minority parties, and my party in particular, are not addressed, it leaves us in a difficult position. The Procedure Committee said that it will closely monitor the experiment to see whether modifications are desirable. I lay down that marker for the future consideration of the results of the experiment.
From their evidence to the Select Committee, and from correspondence that we have had with them, we know that the broadcasters are saying that, that their coverage will be based on the number of parliamentary seats and nothing more. They regard it as no more than their duty to do that. If that is true, again, we as a substantial national but minority parliamentary party will have difficulty in trying to accommodate that approach. If we simply accept indefinitely the situation as set out by the Select Committee, the Procedure Committee and in the evidence given by the broadcasters, we cannot possibly give full value to the 7 million people who voted for us at the last election. I do not believe that, with edited highlights, there is any reason why balanced programmes cannot be produced. That is the message that I want to send out from my party to the broadcasting authorities this evening.
The principle of votes cast as a basis for allocating broadcasting time has been used in similar political contexts—certainly it has been considered in the rules for party political broadcasts. Votes have an influence and should be brought to bear when considering the allocating of broadcasting opportunities in the House. If during live coverage it is not possible to put the view of the Social and Liberal Democrats because the procedures of the House discriminate against the calling of hon. Members from that party, we believe that broadcasters should have a duty to explain why that is so. I do not believe that the Select Committee report goes far enough in making that point clear.
One of the clearest results of the experiment will be an overwhelming cry from the public for a need to change the proceedings in the Chamber. Once they have seen an unvarnished, warts-and-all account of what goes on, how matters are conducted, how time is used and what procedures and Standing Orders are employed, there will, rightly, be an outcry for a massive programme of reform of the procedures, which I would support.
In the experiment, the broadcasters must take account of the fact that they have a duty to make the proceedings intelligible in terms of such matters as hours and Standing Orders. If the Leader of the House is to reply to the debate, will he clarify the simple and interesting question that has been put to me? Supposing attempts are made to produce

625
television programmes to demonstrate the outmoded and archaic methods that we use in the House, will there be any inhibition on the television company using edited film extracts from the proceedings to make that point? I hope that there will not he. However, some of the restrictions contained in the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee report put that matter in doubt. I hope that the Leader of the House will make it clear that there will be no such restriction on the way in which the rules and procedures are looked at by television companies.
Althought I have not time to develop the point here, I believe that the introducton of television cameras will precipitate the argument that the procedures of the House are ripe for change and that the way in which we conduct business here is simply not suitable to sustain the best system of government and the most efficient process of democratic participation for a modern democracy in a country such as ours. A clear need for change in that direction has been shown.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has on a couple of occasions made the point that the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh should be televised. I understand, because the report makes it clear, broadcasting of Committees will have to be demand-led. In terms of the Scottish dimension, I believe that it is essential that the Scottish Grand Committee should be televised. I fear that, looked at from a Scottish perspective, many people in Scotland, if they study the television reports of the proceedings in Parliament, will think that Scotland does not receive its fair share of debating time in the House, which some of us have been saying for a long time. I need only to cite the example of the inability of Scottish hon. Members to get at the heart of what is going on in the Scottish Office, because they are restricted to only one Scottish Question Time every four to six weeks.
It is not just a Scottish problem; it is a wider regional difficulty. I note that the Select Committee report indicates that the members of the Select Committee were aware of some of the problems of getting the live broadcasts transmitted in time for programmes produced in the regions not to be prejudiced by the demands being made simultaneously over two to three busy hours of the day by the national, London and south-east broadcasting organisations.
I hope that urgent consideration will be given to the ability of smaller and regional companies to make a proper contribution and play a proper part in the televising of the proceedings of the House. To that end, is it possible for the Select Committee which is monitoring the results of the experiment—I do not know whether that is the most appropriate body to do it—to keep and publish a log over a 12-month period of what excerpts are used, in what direction and by which company in which programmes? We could then have a complete picture of what use has been made of the film that is presented by the broadcasting units. It is important that we satisfy ourselves that regional broadcasting authorities get a fair crack of the whip.
I have always supported cameras coming into the House, as most of those on the Opposition Benches have done. I believe, however, that the danger is that the broadcasters will glamorise the House as consisting of two rival teams locked in mindless opposition, as we see so often in this place, and the reasoned, middle way will always be edited out. When people watch coverage of the
626
Commons, they expect to see a balanced debate reflecting the views of the parties for which they voted and not just a two-party Punch and Judy show.
8.16 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I address the House as the only member of the Select Committee who voted againsto my right hon. Friend's report. It will be widely assumed that I did so because I am opposed to televising the proceedings of the House. Following the vote in February 1988, I accepted entirely the will of the House and 1, and those who thought as I do, did our best to ensure that, if the House were to be televised, it would he done in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
I commend the report of my right hon. Friend and I congratulate him on the compromise that he has achieved. In the month that it took the Committee to debate and to prepare the report, largely stimulated by our interest, there have been considerable technological advances. The cameras have been improved and miniaturised, much greater effort than was given before has now been given to the change in lighting in the Chamber, and, as a television producer and director, I am satisfied that very many of the technical arguments that I raised when we first debated the issue have, as a result of our interest, been solved.
So why did I vote against my right hon. Friend's report? I believe that the House is about to miss a great opportunity. I moved amendments in Committee to suggest to the House that, if we are to go down this road, we should go entirely down it. I said that it is possible, as is done in the Canadian Parliament, which has been cited long and often in these debates, to provide every lion. Member with the "Oasis" information system. That is a desk-top monitor that could give every hon. Member not only television broadcasts from the House, but all other news services, the data services from the Library, the information services that would allow us to print out the pages from the Vote Office that we need on a day-to-day basis, which in itself would save I suspect several rain forests a year, and it would enable us to have a Division bell override. In Committee, Members on both sides of the House chose to reject the public expenditure that would be necessary to provide that system.
However, there is a further stage, and it is that concern to which I believe the House should only address itself tonight. If we are to carry out the televising of the House and the broadcasting by television of the House, it should be available in its entirety to the electorate.
In the 1988 debate virtually every speaker in favour of televising the House addressed himself to the enhancement of democracy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House said that the proposal will bring the House of Commons to the people. What the House of Commons is being offered tonight and what the public are being offered is quite simply a confidence trick. It is a conspiracy designed to prevent the public from seeing the House of Commons at work. I suppose that I should take some satisfaction from the knowledge that those of us who were originally opposed to televising the House have won the argument if the motion goes through unamended tonight.
It is possible to convey the proceedings of the House unedited to the public and it is possible to do so immediately. Earlier my right hon. Friend suggested that the costs would be such as to dissuade broadcasters from

627
embarking upon the exercise. The Opposition spokesman suggested to the House that he would really like to have a dedicated channel, but that that might delay the experiment and that it was not technically possible. Tonight the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell Savours) will seek to move an amendment to introduce a dedicated channel to the experiment. It is technically possible to do so, never mind in October, but now, and it is affordable.
Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
Mr. Gale: I would prefer not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because, since he is a member of the Select Committee, I am sure that he will seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
The cost of a satellite transponder would be somewhere between £2·5 million and £3·5 million for a year.
Mr. David Shaw: That is peanuts.
Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend says that that is peanuts and in news media terms it is. On an agency basis—the sort of system by which the newspapers, radio and television buy the Reuters service or the Press Association service—it is peanuts. The maximum cost of £3·5 million a year would be shared not only by the BBC, but every independent company in this country and among cable news network, C-Span, CBS, CBC, Australian Broadcasting and other organisations around the world whom we are told would want that service. Shared among all those organisations the cost, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be peanuts.
Mr. Tony Banks: How do we get it in Newham?
Mr. Gale: I believe that cable news network would want to carry the service on a pan-European basis—
Mr. Banks: I said Newham, not Europe.
Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me as, for one fleeting moment, I thought that Newham was part of Europe.
The money could be spent on astra transponders that are available now. We would then have not only the unedited televised proceedings of the Chamber but, for the same money, we could have up to 10 sound channels with still pictures with wiped-in inserts of the person speaking. That would enable us to carry, albeit in limited form, not only the live proceedings of the Chamber from, as the Americans say, "gavel to gavel" but the entire live proceedings of up to 10 Committees simultaneously.
The satellite service would satisfy the fears of those, such as our Scottish friends, who are genuinely concerned that their service will be elbowed out of the way. They are worried that when it comes to the crunch, when the deadline comes and it is five minutes to six and there is a major story breaking in the House of Commons, they will not get the line coverage. The satellite feed, however, would provide every regional station with the sort of service that they need. It would provide those that have the Amstrad dish for £150—those who want the full satellite service from the House of Commons—with that coverage.
It is technically possible now and it is affordable. British Aerospace told the Committee—the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) got this completely round the wrong way and he should
628
acknowledge that—that it could do the job in a specified time, that it had the technology for the uplink and that it could do so to an astra transponder immediately and probably to its own transponder in three years' time.
There is one additional asset that I believe some hon. Members will find interesting. With the satellite system it is possible to carry instant subtitles for the deaf. That can be done by the kind of machine that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) uses day to day in the House. The satellite system would use a slightly upgraded version of that machine. Therefore, every deaf person in this country could have an instant transcription of our proceedings and that transcription could be instantly printed on a data basis as an immediate electronic Hansard that any person in the country with the dish could call up.
Tonight we have an opportunity to do one of two things: we can genuinely enhance democracy in a way that all those who sought to persuade the House back in February 1988 claim that they want to do or we can offer the country and the media a con trick—the edited highlights and lowlights designed, as I have said publicly, to tart up the "Nine o'clock News" and the "News at Ten", but not much else. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the amendment that will be moved by the hon. Member for Workington and I hope that it will be carried. If it is not, I hope that the House will reject the report and that it will tell the Committee to take it back and get it right.
8.27 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I regret the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and particularly his reference to con tricks, as I believe that the proceedings of the Committee during the past year or so have been in a different spirit.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the fair and open manner in which he presided over the workings of the Committee from start to finish. I approached the Committee as a novice in such matters as I had never sat on a Committee where the effort was on attaining consensus rather than emphasising division. I did not know how that could be achieved and I was interested to see how the Committee would work. Every Committee member, with the exception of the hon. Member for Thanet, North, would agree that the Committee worked well and constructively and that the report that was published, while not suiting anyone absolutely, was certainly the honest product of honest endeavour. For that we owe much to the Leader of the House. We also owe him much for the way in which he presented that report tonight.
The central aim of those of us on the Committee who supported the experiment was to attain a consensus that would be acceptable to the House. We were not particularly interested in making gestures or in standing out for points of view that would be patently unacceptable to all the House. We believed that the exercise was far too important for such an approach. For that reason my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and myself were a little disappointed to find ourselves vilified in, of all places, an editorial of The Guardian. That editorial told us that we should hang our heads in shame for putting our names to the report. I do not know whether I greatly care for the reputation of my

629
hon. Friend, but I thought that that was a dreadful way for The Guardian to treat its former Scottish football correspondent.
Those of us who worked in that spirit were prepared to accept a compromise. Of course, we knew that it would be easy for us to posture and come back to the House with a terribly liberal and radical report on how the experiment should be conducted. It would have been easy to divide the Committee. Frankly, I would have hung my head in shame if we had tried to play party politics with this and, in the process, lost the experiment. I hope that the fact that we were prepared to accept a consensus and bury our differences means that we have produced a report that will be acceptable to the House.
All the Opposition Members and the great majority of Conservatives on the Committee approached the report with an open mind. There was a school of thought that the proceedings should have been cut short and that the BBC and ITN should have walked in, said what they were going to do and we would get on with it. However, after hearing the evidence of the BBC and ITN, it was not a point of view which I could share. Those of us who instinctively favour service broadcasting were persuaded that their evidence was not good enough and that we should explore other avenues; we began to do that.
I think that everyone on the Committee would agree that technically, editorially and in every other way the Committee's work developed and improved, and new ideas were opened up as a result of what we heard from some of the independent companies which came to speak to us. On the other hand, some of them were total chancers and we were able to separate the sheep from the goats without too much difficulty.
On the Conservative side of the Committee there was, for some time, a heavy lobby on behalf of a large, independent private company. It was to the credit of Conservative Members that they did not simply lie down in front of the blandishments of the heavy lobby from that source. There was a spirit of compromise and consensus on both sides of the Committee—[Interruption.] I shall not name it until after the vote. Both sides of the Committee were prepared to give ground which they could have been expected to hold.
We visited Canada, and I think that everyone who went would agree that it probably would have been better if we had done that at the start, rather than halfway through our deliberations. As a result of that visit virtually everyone agreed that we should aim for a unit of the House as it exists in both the federal Parliament and also the provincial Parliament which we visited in Toronto.
Most of us who visited Canada also preferred the more liberal regime applied in Toronto as opposed to the rigid one in Ottawa. The suggestions in our report lie somewhere between the two points. I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that we would have preferred a more liberal regime in terms of rules of coverage, but we realised, once again, that if we were going to get the proposals through we would have to give some ground.
I say to those such as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the former Leader of the House, and others who criticised the report because it suggested showing merely head and shoulders that it is not that rigid. It contains the potential for a little experimentation. I believe that as the experiment continues common sense will prevail because the report does not
630
contain the total rigidity which some of the more hysterical leader writers have suggested. Apart from anything else, it is impossible to film nothing more than someone's head and shoulders because there is always something to the left, right, behind or below which will also come out.
Therefore, although we would prefer a more liberal regime, the one proposed is certainly acceptable to me for the purposes of the experiment and, I believe, it will develop according to simple common sense.
I was particularly interested to represent the Scottish dimension and that of the English regions and Wales, to ensure a balance of coverage. The Leader of the House will remember, I certainly well remember, the noise and clamour made from hon. Members on the Nationalist Bench because they were not given membership of the Select Committee. In future, the Nationalist Bench could perhaps be leased out to the public because it is certainly not used by the people who should be sitting on it. I can only assume that the reason for the total absence of the Scottish National party Members tonight is that they are rehearsing for after November, because they will also then be totally absent. I assume that there are no Scottish Tories present because they are rehearsing for after the next general election.
We were concerned to look after the Scottish dimension technically and editorially. For the purposes of the experiment, I would much prefer that the signal was transmitted by satellite so that regional stations around the country could pick up the clean feed and use it for regional and national purposes in Scotland and Wales, where programmes will clearly have a different emphasis from those of the south of England. In the report, we urge the broadcasting companies to do that. We urge them to send the signal around the country by satellite and I hope that our suggestion will be acted upon within the duration of the experiment. We did not, however, feel that we could instruct them to do that or that it should be written into the report, but the message is very clear.
I shall take up the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North—and doubtless it will be taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—about the absolute necessity for a dedicated channel. There is nothing in the report to prevent the existence of a dedicated channel if a company wants to take the signal and show it around the country. The amendment before us is a wrecking amendment because the idea that the experiment should collapse because a few thousand people scattered around the country cannot receive the signal on their little dishes is farcical. The idea that it would be a con trick if 100 per cent. of the people watched the House of Commons under the terms of this report but a great advance for democracy if 99 per cent. watched under the terms of the report and 1 per cent. under the terms outlined by the hon. Member for Thanet, North is ludicrous.
This is a wrecking amendment. I am in favour of a dedicated channel, which will come, but it is totally irrelevent to this report and its spirit to insist that a dedicated channel should be included in it. Let us put it to the test: if any station or satellite company wants to include a dedicated channel, it can do so. Quite frankly, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Thanet, North that there should be 10 dedicated channels, one of the Chamber and nine of Committees, on offer, even The Sun would have difficulty giving away 100,000 dishes so that people could watch them.
Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman clearly misunderstood what I said. One satellite transponder will provide enough capacity to cover this Chamber and up to 10 Committees.
Mr. Wilson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for Workington will elaborate on it.
I support the report in its entirety and will do so in the vote tonight. This is not the end, but the beginning, of a major democratic advance in this country—there is no doubt about that. I can understand why Conservative Members might vote against it, but I cannot for the life of me understand why any Opposition Members would vote against a report which allows the electors to see what is said and done in their name. I cannot understand how anyone who pays lip service to democracy can, in the last stages of the 20th century, deny the electorate the right to see what is said and done in their name. That is the bottom line of the report.
I am not interested in the party advantages that will come out of the experiment because no one can forecast them, and that is not the way in which this matter should be measured. It should be measured as a democratic advance and anyone who fears that is in trouble with his own beliefs and principles.
The proposals in the report, when acted upon, will expose fools, reward wisdom and rubbish morons. They might change the behaviour of the House, but nothing I have seen since I came here suggests that behaviour in the House of Commons is so perfect that it does not need a little bit of change. Let us have in all that is suggested in the report by the time of the Queen's Speech. I am sure that once the cameras are in, they will stay in. Tonight, we are witnessing an important democratic advance with which I am proud to be associated and I congratulate the Leader of the House on the way in which he has led it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again appeal for short contributions of five or six minutes from each hon. Member? That would enable me to call everyone who wants to speak.
8.39 pm
Mr. Roger Sims: I wholeheartedly support televising the proceedings of the House for the reason given by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). The House of Commons is the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It may be a system that we sometimes take for granted, but perhaps events elsewhere in the world in the past two or three weeks will make us value it more.
If the Chamber is the heart of our parliamentary democracy, it is surely important that people should see what goes on in it. There is clearly a demand that they should. We all know how many requests we receive for people to get tickets to sit in the Strangers' Gallery. Every day a queue of people waits outside to come in. With television, all our constituents will have a chance to follow our proceedings.
I favour televising our proceedings, but they should stay as they are now. We should not change our procedures to accommodate television cameras. In that respect, I agree with the report of the Procedure Committee, on which I served. The House will recall that we agreed in principle to an experiment in February 1988
632
and the Select Committee was set up the following month. It has not produced its recommendations precipitately and there has been some criticism of the time it has taken. The Select Committee has gone into it in great detail and is to be congratulated on its thoroughness.
I have noted with interest the arguments in favour of a dedicated channel, which would be unedited, but I have no great enthusiasm for it—although I am not against the idea. Surely only a very small audience will want to watch continuous televising of the House. Most people will see what goes on here on news programmes and in programmes about Parliament. There is also the danger, with a dedicated channel, that word will get around that there is a sort of peak viewing time during which Members will jostle for position to make speeches, and that would certainly alter the character of our debates.
Of course, editing always takes place. We are bound to be worried about it, but the press and radio have always done it. We have often read reports in the newspapers which refer to every speech in a debate except the one that we made ourselves. We have often listened to "Today in Parliament" and heard about many speeches, after which the announcer informs us that three other Members also spoke, one of whom happens to be yours truly. Nevertheless, we have to live with editing.
I want to emphasise a point that others have already made about paragraph 59 and to express the hope that help will be given with televising for the deaf, who constitute a large minority of the population. There are in this country almost 4 million people who are hard of hearing and 50,000 who are born profoundly deaf. In recent years great advances have been made in the use of subtitles and sign language on television. Of course there will be difficulties about incorporting them into a television service, but they are not insuperable. I regret that the report merely expresses the hope that every effort will be made to meet the needs of the deaf. I want a stronger commitment. This is a wonderful opportunity to widen the world for deaf people and it should not be missed.
I also support the references to the televising of Standing and Select Committees. No doubt the two 15-minute Prime Minister's questions sessions will be fully televised each week, but they are not representative of Parliament. I should have liked some of my constituents to see the work of the Standing Committee on the Children Bill in recent weeks. In that Committee, on which I served, they would have seen Members of all parties working hard and well together to produce legislation on an important and sensitive area. It was Parliament at its best, and it is to be hoped that that is the sort of proceeding that the television cameras will cover—although I regret that, for most of the Committee's proceedings, not a soul was to be seen in the press seats.
As for the rules of coverage, paragraph 5 states:
"We would welcome a degree of flexibility"
in the experiment. In paragraph 37 a statement of objectives is given, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has referred:
"The director should seek … to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings".
Has the Committee got it right to ensure that that will be done? Do its proposals incorporate the degree of flexibility to which it refers? We do not formally recognise that we have a public Gallery or that there is anyone in it; but we know that, except in the small hours, we are not alone. Surely the aim should be to allow the television viewer to

633
see what a person who is physically present would usually see. As my right hon. Friend said, that would not be exactly possible because the person in the Gallery can look around the Chamber, whereas the viewer will see only what the camera shows—but that is the whole point: we are discussing where the camera should be looking.
Because this is a public forum, we must recognise that there will be a temptation for people to demonstrate occasionally because they will get publicity by so doing. Television cameras will create an even greater temptation. The Committee rightly proposes restrictions, but it is also important that our constituents should be able to see what is going on here and, as far as possible, get the feel of the place and absorb the atmosphere in which debates take place.
In addition to what are described as restrictions in paragraph 38 there are specific guidelines in paragraph 39. Perhaps there is a subtle difference between them, but the directors would clearly be well advised to comply with the so-called guidelines.
Let us consider for a moment what the effect on this debate would be if it were being televised. According to the standard format, my head and shoulders would be shown as I was speaking—and nothing else. I do not profess to be the most photogenic Member of the House—
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Oh yes you are.
Mr. Sims: It is kind of my hon. Friend, of all people, to say so. However, even if I were, 10 minutes of head and shoulders of any one person would not provide the most riveting viewing and would not be the best way of assessing that person's contribution.
What about body language? In the course of making a speech most of us use our hands, as I am unselfconsciously doing from time to time. I sometimes wonder whether some of our colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), could be rendered mute by having their hands tied behind their backs. It is important that viewers should see whether Members are using notes and to what extent they are receiving the attention of the House. Are they addressing a packed House, hanging on their every word, or are just the Member and Mr. Speaker present? Anyone in the Gallery can see that, but the television viewer, under these restrictions, will not.
What about the effect of a Member's remarks? Even as I have been speaking some of my hon. Friends have been indicating assent, or otherwise, to my remarks, and that is all part of the debate. But under these restrictions the viewer will not be able to see that. I suggest that just as it is possible to allow a director complete freedom and the television cameras enough rope with which to hang themselves—so the experiment would fail—it is also possible to be so restrictive that the experiment will be judged to have failed. I am not sure that the Committee has got the balance entirely right between complete freedom and undue restriction. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that in Committee there were differences of view on that point. Therefore, it is right that the House should be given the opportunity to decide for itself on this point.
634
I hope that the House will support the report, but I invite it to omit the guidelines which confine shots to the head and shoulders of the Member who is speaking and preclude panning shots along the Benches.
8.51 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Over 12 months ago, I and other hon. Members were invited by Granada Television to the mock Commons studio in Manchester to debate the televising of Parliament. During those proceedings, I spoke against edited excerpts and in favour of a dedicated channel. I returned to my constituency after the programme had been transmitted and was confronted by people who said that I was opposed to the televising of Parliament. In so far as my comments had been edited, that served to confirm my reservation about the whole question of the editing of parliamentary proceedings. That is why I support a dedicated channel.
I want what Nye Bevan described in his last great speech in 1959, the re-establishment of intelligent communication between the House of Commons and the electorate as a whole. I might add that I do not want to see trivia. I have tabled three amendments, the first of which would block all transmissions from the Chamber apart from those on a dedicated channel. That amendment was not selected. My second amendment would permit edited excerpts to run concurrently with a dedicated channel over an experimental period. The dedicated channel was considered by the Committee and supported. The Committee report says:
"We believe that continuous coverage of the House's proceedings on a dedicated channel is a highly desirable objective in the public interest. The fact that we have not felt able to make any specific recommendations on the subject in this Report has nothing to do with the merits of the idea itself, which we strongly support; it stems from practical considerations related to the timing and nature of the experiment."
British Aerospace and British Satellite Broadcasting gave evidence to the Committee. However, the Committee rejected their case and the proposals that they put forward for a dedicated channel. The problem, especially in the case of the submission by British Aerospace, was that it was based on funding the scheme from terrestrial broadcasting income and the use by the consumer of a dish costing more than £500 and a dish for professional purposes that costs £5,000.
British Aerospace was never asked a most important question. It was never asked whether it could transmit on a dedicated channel proceedings of the House to be received on a £150 to £200 Amstrad dish which is currently sold by Comet and Dixon's and a host of other retailers across the United Kingdom for receiving Sky television. The price of that dish is likely to fall and its use could bypass completely the terrestrial broadcasters because programmes could be transmitted straight from Westminster and received in people's homes on a cheap dish.
Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that even if his proposition went through the current viewing figures for Sky television are such that there are probably more people in the Strangers' Gallery watching this debate than would see it if his proposition were accepted?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I can assure my hon. Friend that more people watch Sky television than are in the

635
Gallery for the debate, and that dishes are being sold. My amendment would provide the kind of support that is needed.
As I say, the question that I have mentioned was never put to British Aerospace. I contacted the company today and it said:
"British Aerospace Telecommunications confirms that it could provide satellite and uplink facilities for the televising of Parliament using the ECS … low power satellite (needing a 1·2–1·5 m receiving dish) for about £1 million pa. Based on a usage of 32 week year, 37·5 hour week"—
that is equivalent to our proceedings in their entirety apart from debates that take place after 10 pm—
"which is equivalent to £833 per hour. Signals could be received on dishes costing about £500 for this service."
I am not putting forward that proposition. The letter continues:
"If smaller receiving dishes like those used for ASTRA are the requirement then we could, in principle and subject to availability, equally well operate to that satellite from our earthstation here at Stevenage. However, the satellite transponder charges for that space segment"—
which is four times the power of the transponder that I referred to—
"are much greater and the BAe Telecommunications inclusive price for the same number of hours would be about £4m pa. This is equivalent to £3,330 per hour. It is understood that receivers from ASTRA are expected to cost less than £200 and many predict that within 12 months the price could fall to about £100."
Some people would argue that my proposition would delay implementation of the report. I went back to British Aerospace for another letter which I received today. It says:
"BAe Telecommunications confirms that it has reserved capacity on the European Communications Satellite for at least the following three years and therefore could guarantee coverage of Parliamentary proceedings from the October date which you identified in our telephone conversation.
I would also comment that the figures contained in our earlier letter from David Gregory"—
I understand that Mr. Gregory is here for the debate—
"referring to prices and availability for the use of the Astra Satellite"—
that is the Sky television £150 dish—
"were based on telephone conversations of today's date."
I then asked for a further qualification and this also arrived today. It says:
"Further to Mr. Gregory's letter to you, I can confirm that BAeTeI has both the necessary ground transmission equipment and the capacity reserved on Eutelsat satellites for the next three years and as such can certainly transmit parliamentary proceedings from October this year. We can also confirm from a telephone conversation today that adequate capacity is also available on the Astra satellite for a similar period."
I read that into the record to show that British Aerospace can provide the facility from October this year if Parliament seeks to resolve the matter in that way.
Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but I will not. I have already given way to my hon. Friend once, and it is now nearly 9 o'clock. I have an obligation to others who want to speak after me.
The examination of British Aerospace's option was based on the reaction of the broadcasters, who were fearful of the expenditure implications. They never considered direct broadcasting on cheap dishes running concurrently with the Committee's principal proposals. In other words,
636
they did not consider direct broadcasting dishes. They relied on discussion about terrestrial broadcasting being part of the process.
I shall deal now with the cost. We have two options —£1 million for a £500 dish or £4 million for £150 reduced-in-price Amstrad dishes, plus £200,000 for a sending earthstation near Westminster. There are four options for funding that. First, there is public subscription, which some hon. Members will reject. Secondly, there is the possibility of advertising, which other hon. Members will reject. Thirdly, we have specialist consumers, a number of whom were identified by British Aerospace in a memorandum to the Committee, which said:
"there is a market throughout the UK for information on the deliberations of Government in the form of continuous sound, television and text by businesses, local press, educational establishments and private citizens. The second group of users is important as a way of monitoring publicly the editorial decisions of the first."
We can also offer a service of electronic Hansard, and most town halls would want transmission and would pay for it. The public library system could equally subscribe, and I am also told that it is possible that the satellite companies, during this experimental period, might offer a concessionary tariff, if only with a view to getting the business long term.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but it is 9 o'clock and I have given way once. Other people wish to speak in the debate.
At the end of the experimental period, we could either throw out the lot—something that some want to do—or we could thrown out either the dedicated channel or what I call edited excerpt television. If we were to throw out the second, should we proceed in the way that I suggest, the effect would be to increase the number of satellite dish sales. I am not saying that that is necessarily a matter that Parliament should take into account, but it would be a factor.
The fourth and final route that we may go down into the future is that of fibre optics. Along with others, British Telecom is advocating the principle of a fibre-optic network throughout the United Kingdom, on telephone lines. The cables will be capable of transmitting a television picture. In the longer term, those who do not take this service on a dish could take it on a fibre-optic cable.
9.2 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, and I shall refer to that later. However, first I endorse what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said about the work of the Committee, which was one of the most pleasant and happy Select Committees on which I have served. The work was rather harder and took rather longer than I had anticipated. I pay tribute, as he did, to the remarkable leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to the amiability and good humour of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow Leader of the House, who also contributed to the work of the Committee. We were a diverse group, politically and in our views, and our discussions were vigorous but never rancorous.

637
Nothing that I have heard or seen since then has relieved the anxieties that I had when I voted in February 1988 against televising the House. I still retain anxieties about several points. The prime one, and the reason why I served on the Committee, concerns the rights of Back Benchers, which I wish to ensure are not further eroded. Every time we have had a so-called improvement in communications, or even in procedure, in Parliament, it has served to enhance the status and power of the Front Bench, no matter which party is in power. By definition, it has tended to diminish the influence of Back-Bench Members. There is a danger that television will accentuate this.
I put that point to a former Speaker and the present Speaker of the Canadian Parliament and they confirmed that such an outcome was a danger and had, to some extent, happened in the Canadian Parliament. Although the procedure there is different, Governments of all parties should be restrained, so far as possible, from hogging the Floor. The Select Committee on Procedure, which is well chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), should apply its mind to the problem, as no doubt it will in the near future.
I stress the importance of media people attending to regional coverage, which will he the only way that Back Benchers will be able to circumvent the domination of Front-Bench spokesmen. That is tremendously important if Back Benchers are not to disappear into the background in the presence of the grandees of the Front Benches.
My second concern is the quality of debate. We all know that apart from cross-party debates such as this or debates about sex, which are always very exciting, debate has been moving inexorably away from the Chamber. I fear that television will accelerate that movement. We shall, as I saw in the Canadian Parliament, cease to address each other and, increasingly, speak to the public outside, rather like party political broadcasts or horrible things like that. That was the experience in Canada, and unless we are careful the Chamber could ultimately become little more than show business, in which case we may as well hand over the presentation of Parliament straight away to actors and comedians and get on with the real discussion elsewhere. However, that is not why Parliament was formed and developed for many centuries.
Some hon. Members have expressed their concern about misbehaviour, but I feel that that worry has been exaggerated. Parliaments come and go, but exhibitionists will always be with us. Nevertheless, we shall have to watch that carefully. I do not believe that hon. Members will become much worse, but it is an illusion to suppose that suddenly their behaviour will be much better. In the sporting world, it was always said, "When the television cameras are looking on no one will be able to misbehave." The same argument has been advanced for Parliament. In truth, far from having curbed misconduct in sport, television has accentuated it. All the tomfoolery of running on to the pitch seems to be a feature of our modern sporting fields now that the cameras are on them.
I entirely understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), whom I greatly respect. If everyone were as gentlemanly as my hon. Friend, there would be no need for any rules or laws, but they are not, either in this place or in the reporting and journalism world. My answer to my hon. Friend is that, yes, we hope to be able to liberalise and have wider coverage than we have suggested in the report, but I
638
always believe that it is far better to start tough and then see whether one can relax. It usually proves impossible to do it the other way round. It does not matter whether one is captaining a team or commanding a regiment, one should start tough and relax later.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in Canada the rules that started tough have remained so for more than a decade?
Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Gentleman is right about the federal Parliament, but that does not apply in the provincial Parliaments. I was not particularly impressed by that, but I hope that we can learn from Canada's experience and that in due course we will move more in the direction of the Toronto legislature than the federal Parliament in Ottawa.
I support the Committee's report in broad principle. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it is a package. Predictably, it has been criticised by television people, who have a vested interest, and we must sustain their displeasure with fortitude. They are mostly intelligent and responsible people, and I pay tribute to them for the dedicated and interesting way in which they gave evidence to the Committee.
There was a time when it was said that Parliament was dominated by lawyers, but that no longer applies. Nowadays it tends to be dominated by journalists and media folk, and it is equally undesirable. It is essential, and the wish of an overwhelming number of Members, to keep control of the experiment ourselves and to ensure that the cameras show a broader view of Parliament than just the Chamber and the pantomime of Prime Minister's questions twice a week, which is so beloved of the BBC.
I agree with the hon. Member for Workington in his proposals for a dedicated channel, a gavel-to-gavel electronic Hansard or whatever it is. I should have liked such a system for radio. Many hon. Members who fear, as I do, the dangers of misleading or mischievous editing or selection in the hands of unaccountable people should support the amendment if, as the hon. Gentleman persuades me, it is a practical proposition.
The hon. Member for Workington need not worry about being ragged by his hon. Friends about fewer people in the Strangers' Gallery watching the proceedings. Not many people read Hansard, but it is available to them. That is the key point. I shall support the amendment. If it is lost, I shall support the report as a workmanlike and reasonable compromise in all the circumstances. I hope that we will not lose sight of the idea of a dedicated channel, which is the way forward.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal for five-minute speeches, which will enable me to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak.
9.10 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) may like to categorise me as a journalist and media person, but in this matter I speak as a Member of the House of Commons who is concerned about the importance of this institution and this Chamber. It seems to me, as a Member of the House who is concerned with its interests, that the House is in danger of becoming an irrelevant, unimportant

639
backwater unless we communicate on television with the people who now rely on television for news and information on current affairs.
Our role is not to control the Executive—we can do that only if it is afraid that we can throw it out. That function has passed from here to the people. Our role is not even to influence each other. In this Chamber we are developing and testing the arguments and putting to the people the cases for and against what the Government are doing as the raw materials on which, at the end of four or five years, they will decide whether to keep or throw the Government out. Our essential job is public education—putting the arguments before the people. We are, therefore, irrelevant and the job is incompetently done unless we reach the people through that medium. That is the essential argument for televising Parliament.
That has always been the case, and it is the case now. It is not so much that the people want Parliament televised, although 60 per cent. do, and it is not so much that they have a right to it, although they do. It is that we cannot do our job without televising Parliament.
In that light, I am not entirely happy with the Committee's report. It took far too long for the report to be produced—18 months was far too long. The report is too cautious because it is too deferential to our egos, susceptibilities and tendernesses and it attaches too little importance to the public's wishes. It is irrelevant, however, to go into that now, because the report has been agreed. Its recommendations will be developed in the light of experience. Indeed, because of the technical problems of covering the most difficult studio in the world and because of the quick interchange of debate, the recommendations will probably have to change anyway.
In any case, if the report had recommended that the speech of every Member should be prefaced by a herald from the royal chorus of trumpeters in the Gallery, that little cherubim and seraphim should be superimposed on the picture round every Member's head and that sound and applause should be dubbed in, I would have accepted that, too, because it is so important to get across the principle that the proceedings of this institution should be covered by the television cameras. If it gets the cameras in, I would accept it. That is the basis on which I accept the report.
The opposition to the report and to televising is based only on fear—fear of ourselves, of the medium and of the public outside. It is interesting that opponents of televising have moved their ground. They no longer oppose it in principle but are now trying to use other arguments, saying that we should have televising only if there is a dedicated channel and that it should be done liberally. Opposition to the principle is now concealed by other motives.
On amendment (c), I must say that I am an enthusiatic and strong supporter of a dedicated television channel, covering Parliament full time. That is essential. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is essential in this country to have a channel such as C-SPAN in the United States, which carries public affairs generally, so that the political nation can talk to the political nation. Such a channel would cover not only Parliament—because we are no longer the only forum for discussion—but the parties, the speeches, the press conferences, the pressure groups and
640
the university seminars. I should like to see all that on television and it could be covered via satellite and via cable.
However, it is wrong to make a dedicated channel a sine qua non, which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done, in effect. It is wrong to say that we will not have the report unless we have full-time, dedicated coverage. Such coverage will come. Getting Parliament on television will strengthen the case for it. People will want to put political issues in context and there is a demand for full-time coverage, which will be voiced only when Parliament is shown on the other terrestrial channels. Yet it is wrong to make a dedicated channel a condition of the coverage.
The report is too cautious and too late. We are 10 years behind most advanced countries, five years behind the other place, which has benefited enormously from coverage on television, and one year behind any reasonable timetable in this place. However, with all its problems, with all its reservations and with all its cautiousness, the report enshrines the vital principle of bringing to the people, through the medium on which they rely for their news and information about current affairs, what is being done by their representatives in their name and on the issues that affect their lives. That is the principle which we must espouse.
As hon. Member for Great Grimsby, where people cannot drop in and out of the Chamber, even with the difficulties that obtain for people here, I believe that we need to bring Parliament to everyone throughout the country. This is an historic opportunity and an historic moment for the House. Let us seize that opportunity.
9.16 pm
Sir John Stokes: I have spoken more on this subject than on any other subject I can remember. I am not a member of the communications industry, but just an ordinary Englishman. We must be careful not to think that we all spend all day every day looking at that awful box. It is very harmful to the nation, its manners and its morals. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that the televising of our proceedings would change our procedures. That means, I suppose, that Question Time would become everyone else's high tea time. I do not want that to happen. I want our procedures to remain as they are. I want the House to remain what it is because I love this place. It has a special character which is quite unlike that of all the other places that have been televised, which are so terribly boring that nobody watches them. This place is special and precious and we must safeguard it.
I have always felt that, in general, the coming of the television industry has been thoroughly harmful rather than beneficial to the nation. When television covers current affairs, it tends to distort, to trivialise and to sensationalise. That is why I oppose the coming of television to this House and why I find it hard to accept the report, good as it no doubt is and hard as the Committee worked. The main danger is that television is a branch of the showbiz industry and it is not suited to the quite different business that we conduct here. That is why we must have every possible safeguard built into the experiment.
I noted that the clever Mr. Bernard Levin wrote a particularly stupid article in The Times in which he implied

641
that by controlling the broadcasting we were trying to make ourselves look like plaster saints. We are not. We are trying to stop the television editors and producers making us look like a non-stop variety show.
We must never forget that the public have no interest in whether the House is televised. In my 19 years here, representing about 80,000 of the best people in England, not one has ever written to me saying, "You must televise your proceedings." All the demand for televising that has been talked about is absolute rubbish. Our constituents want to be able to send good men here, men whom they can trust. They will be all right then. Let us remember that in the greatest days of this country, not only was there no television but there was no reporting, and never has this country been better governed.
However, now we are told that we can learn some lessons from the televising of the proceedings in the other place, which I still so greatly admire, despite the new life peers. Television in the other place, originally much heralded, was initially broadcast daily, first at a reasonable hour, then at a late hour. Now the proceedings are broadcast only weekly. Then it will be monthly and eventually it will vanish altogether. Let us remember also that their Lordships have no constituents and that they are not subjected to the lobbying to which we are subjected.
We are in danger of making ourselves self-important and ridiculous. Hon. Members may think that the debate will be the talk of the pubs. Well, go to the pub tomorrow— not you, Mr. Speaker—and you will not hear the subject mentioned. It is of interest only to people in the media, not to most ordinary people, who are much more interested in cricket scores and good things like that. We must have a sense of proportion. Surely the Labour party, which purports to represent the ordinary man, should hold such views just as much as the Tory party. I am surprised that it does not.
I fear that the televising of our proceedings would utterly ruin the character of this great and famous Chamber, the most famous debating chamber in the world. I very much hope that this nonsense is thrown out.
9.21 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have some sympathy with some of the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), but the House has taken a decision and unless people disagree with that decision—their moral right to do so is questionable—we shall have an experiment. Therefore, it should be as good as we can make it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, and the many other hon. Members who feel concern about this, that the perception of our constituents about the job of a Member of Parliament is that we come into the Chamber, sit in serried ranks and speak or not speak as the case may be. We all know that the job of Parliament and of parliamentarians is about much more than either being in here or in Committee, but we cannot get that across to our constituents. Sound radio tended to reinforce that wrong perception. Many people are concerned that that perception will be still more heightened by the way in which edited excerpts and highlights, emphasising the Front Benches, will be used during television news programmes and I believe that that is probably what will happen. The danger of that is
642
comparable to hearing a Beethoven symphony played on the timpani and the trumpet. We must do something in the experiment to counteract that.
Some people have said that "Today in Parliament" is a good programme and it is perhaps the best of the BBC's efforts. However, I wrote to the editors of the programme many years ago when I first became a Member of the House and asked why they did not mention the Adjournment debates, saying, "Surely people are interested in knowing that this cottage hospital or that bypass has been discussed." I said that the debate need not be mentioned in detail but that the fact that an hon. Member had raised a matter should be referred to. The editors said, "No, it will be of concern to only a small number of people. That is not news."
What we do here may not he newsworthy but it is important. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said, this is the biggest television studio in the world, it will be used by the media as a new source of raw material. This place is much more important than that. It should not be seen simply as a new source of visual news material. This place is the centre of the democratic operations of our nation and democracy today is on the march. We know that a great deal of what we do here today was developed in the 1680s and 1690s and that many things happened across the Channel and in North America in the 1780s and the 1790s.
We see events from all around the world on television. We see and hear about what is happening to the democratic process in Poland, Moscow and in Tiananmen square. Poland and perhaps even South Africa may be branching out towards democracy. We are not talking about just another show or more raw material For the broadcasters. We are talking about something that should be put in its worldwide context. We are the guardians of a procedure that I believe to be unique.
On Friday 9 June The Independent carried a translation of what one young man had written on the hoardings in Tiananmen square:
"So we appeal to the Chinese: Get rid of the tradition of pure ideology-making, of sloganising, of objectifying. These are empty democracy. They must start the process of actual operation, of practical procedures, of turning a democracy movement centred on the enlightenment of thought into that of an actual operation. They must start with the details."
The procedures of the House are practical examples of democracy in action. Our democracy may not be perfect, but at least it is in operation and, to some extent, we are pioneers. Anything that could possibly damage our proceedings must be viewed with concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is right that, unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is accepted, it will be the producers and editors who press the button and choose what the public see. It will be the executives who choose the producers, the directors of television firms who choose the executives and those who own the firms who choose the directors.
I believe that the condition of having a dedicated channel, if that is possible, as I understand it, is an important one. It would allow people who wanted to see part of an Adjournment debate to do so. A debate could be relayed to a town hall, for example. It would allow people to see their Parliament. Tonight, we are in a position to decide that all the people should be able to see

643
all the time all that is said and done in their name in their Parliament. That would be a very important democratic safeguard.
I hope that my hon. Friend's amendment will be accepted, because there can hardly be a case against it. But even if it is not, I hope that the Committee will proceed along similar lines. Unless it does, the perception of this place and the way in which it works—the democratic methods that we have developed—may be placed in jeopardy. I urge the House to support my hon. Friend's amendment and the proceedings of the House as we know them and to make them open to the whole public all the time.
9.28 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I support the report and I shall vote for the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am delighted to note that, although so many hon. Members are busy with European elections and by-elections and even though it is Monday, we have quite a good turnout. I hope that we shall make progress tonight. I think that we shall be making history tonight and we shall remember that with pleasure in the years to come.
Let me offer a word of praise for the Committee's efforts. The press coverage of the Committee's report was not good preparation for this debate. Many of the leader writers in national newspapers hooted with laughter and cast derision on what it said. As the Opposition Front Bench spokesman ruefully admitted, the press mainly poked fun at the Opposition, and called them
"denizens of London's clubland queruling lest some unauthorised person should blow his nose in the billiards room."
That strikes me as a pretty fair description of one or two Opposition Members.
The Committee's report, however, was not like the representations of it in the press. Some of it could only have been written by a Committee. I read with amusement paragraph 21 which says:
"In addition to our proposals for House representation on the board of House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd., we recommend the appointment of an Officer of the House to act as the Supervisor of Broadcasting. The Supervisor should report to a monitoring Select Committee."
That could only have been written by a Committee; what busy bees they are going to be. That sort of tone is a bit of a pity and it demonstrates some of the compromises that the Committee had to reach.
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this is an experiment. We should go along with it and make our decision when it is over. I do not accept the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I listened carefully to his description of the technical possibilities, but he was beginning to put me off. He suggested that we might have access to 10 Select Committees simultaneously. That does not attract me, as I have had considerable difficulties with one Select Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I demur a little at the way that he put his point.
In general, I am impressed. It is clear that a great deal of work has gone into the report. I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said about the proposal to restrict the view to head
644
and shoulders, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). I think it a little unfortunate to dub that as merely shampoo politics. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has left the Chamber—probably for a television interview—because if such shampoo politics were to encourage him to have a haircut, that might be an advantage. What is the problem? Why do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House feel so concerned? I look at the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and bear in mind that on television we all look about a stone heavier, as he well knows. I wonder whether he is worried that constituents might be a little concerned about ample girths or that on some occasions hon. Members are not dressed as sartorially as they might want. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt)—who served on the Committee—and other right hon. and hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Benches, should be perfectly satisfied with the notion that they might be photographed from the neck down as well as from the neck up. I note that the real concern of the Committee is that it does not want close-ups, which I do not understand, but it is an experiment and we should proceed with it.
I have listened carefully to the debate and I am glad to have this opportunity to participate in it. I gained a slight impression from the Committee's report and from many Opposition Members that the House produces something —a debate, procedure or an activity—and that someone wants to interfere with it and take it from us. Paragraph 11(i) refers to consumers being the broadcasting companies whereas paragraph 37 refers to viewers. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House implied that the broadcasters are the producers and that the House, in purchasing a sort of electronic Hansard, will be the customer. Both those approaches are fundamentally flawed because they show no awareness of the fact that the consumers are the viewers, and that the viewers are the voters. They put us here and they are puzzled why we keep them out. They do not understand what we are debating tonight—53 years after the first television broadcast in Britain; they cannot understand why we are so afeared of it.
That point was put extremely well by Robert Harris in a recent article in The Sunday Times. He said:
"What kind of timid and enfeebled nation have we become that we cannot be allowed to see our own legislature at work in all its noise and colour, its inefficiencies and longueurs?.… who exactly is protecting whom. Nobody seriously believes that it is the electorate which has to be shielded from the unsavoury sight of the Commons"—
even the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in full spate.
"Quite the reverse. It is the Commons which has decided that it wants protection from the prying eyes of the public. Thus is democracy … stood on its head."
All it leads to is the impression outside this place that we have something to hide—not that broadcasters or viewers cannot be trusted, but that we flinch at public reaction. That is nonsense.
Mr. Richard Tracey rose—
Mrs. Currie: I have been asked to be brief, and I shall honour that.
I shall vote for my right hon. Friend's motion because I recognise the work that has been done and because the

645
report makes sensible suggestions. Most of all, I will vote for the report because it will get the cameras in here, and it is about time. The people will then judge, and whichever way they judge, I will be content.
9.34 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: If for no other reason, I compliment the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on her choice of colours this evening; they will look very good on television. The thought of her coming at the public on 10 different channels makes even the strongest hon. Member baulk.
I owe the Leader of the House an apology. I am prepared to give him that apology this evening. The advent of the report has taken away my favourite business question. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was dragging his feet. I thought that the report was rather like the holy grail—everyone had heard of it, but no one knew where it was. At least the report is here, but I am disappointed that it is timid. There is not the scope that I would have expected the Select Committee to come up with. I do not like the commercialism in it—the idea of setting up a limited company. I know that that might be paying lip service to the economic philosophy of the present Government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, but I do not think that it suits the House of Commons. It could even be the thin end of the sponsorship wedge. Before long, we will end up as the John Player Parliament, with Mr. Speaker's wig being sponsored by Vidal Sassoon and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) being sponsored by Harrods' food hall. I do not think that we want that.
I will support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), although I suspect his motives. I know how he feels about broadcasting and the televising of Parliament. A dedicated channel is wanted. It will answer all our doubts and fears. It would mean that there would be no intermediary and no filter. I do not consider that we have been well served by the Press Gallery. I would like to see the director being able to aim the cameras towards the Press Gallery so that members of the public could see just how few members of the press are here, yet they manage to write so much, and so much that is incorrect, about what we say.
I do not know why The Sun bothers to have someone in the Parliamentary Lobby. For the life of me, if The Sun can have someone in the Parliamentary Lobby, so should the Exchange and Mart, Penthouse and, quite frankly, Beano and Dandy as well. I do not want people of that sort interposing between what goes on here and the public. That is why a dedicated channel is absolutely crucial. We should not be looking around for someone to pay for it. We should do it in the interests of democracy. We should say that democracy is beyond price in the market place and that, therefore, Parliament is prepared to put up the necessary funds.
In conclusion, I ask the Leader of the House one question. If the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is passed, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House to support the amended substantive motion? Quite frankly, if I thought that, by supporting my hon. Friend's amendment, we were likely to lose even that which we have, clearly I will opt for the
646
smaller and look later for the larger, extended, dedicated channel which I know would find support on both sides of the House.
9.38 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When my right hon. Friend used the phrase "the important thing is", referring to Committees, I hoped that he was going to say, "The important thing is that the experiment being conducted should not interfere with the work of the Select Committee." I have forgotten what it was that he said was important, but it was not the most important thing of the lot. Quite a number of hon. Members have said that the epicentre of effective action has moved out of the Chamber. That is certainly so. It is the Select Commit tees which, by being able to focus sustained questioning on witnesses, are able to get information in a way that the one question only on the Floor of the House at Question Time never can.
If questioning is to be focused and sustained in Select Committee, it is absolutely essential that every member of the Committee has a full view of the witnesses who are being examined and that the lighting is not such as to impede the Committee in its work. We could very easily achieve a situation where we look like the Toton Macoute in Haiti, where more and more Members are wearing dark glasses. Although those who recommended televising Parliament before the crucial vote never stopped assuring us that the cameras today needed no additional lighting to what we already have, having got the vote, they then assure us that there is no truth in that whatever and that greatly increased levels of lighting are needed. That, I think, was a bit of sleight of hand that the House did not deserve.
I am particularly concerned about the effect of these proposals on Select Committees, even more than the effect on the Chamber. The important thing is that the advent of television will put the public in the position that they would have been if they could have been in the Gallery or in a Select Committee meeting—it should not alter what they are seeing. That is the criterion by which we should judge the success or failure of this experiment.
The lighting must be controlled. The cameras in Select Committee must not interfere with the process of examining witnesses. If they do, the Chairman of the Select Committee must have power to order them to cease doing whatever they are doing that is breaking the focus and the sustained effect of the questioning.
I shall support the amendment of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), because I think it is a very valuable thing indeed that, just as nobody censors what those in the Gallery see and nobody censors what is seen in public sittings of Select Committees, the programme going out continuously will not be chopped about to the convenience of somebody other than the viewers.
9.41 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief because I know that a couple of other hon. Members want to speak. Although I welcome the report and I voted for the advent of televising the House, I must say that the experiment is far too closely controlled. It is as though the

647
Committee was very much afraid of the media rather than it being composed of people who have grown increasingly used to working with them.
The reality is that the Chamber has been withering. The attendance tonight is not too bad, but for the majority of the time a dozen hon. Members is about the maximum present. Indeed, in spite of big occasions such as the Budget, the biggest attendance that I can recall since 1987 has not been for a debate on an external crisis, on events in other countries, or on the economic crisis, but it was when the House was discussing the discipline to be handed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). Television cameras would help to replace such a discussion with more important issues, would gain maximum attendance in the Chamber and would encourage a reversal in the decline of attendance in what should be the centre piece of Parliament.
One does not deny the importance of Select Committees and the cross-examination of witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that the freemasons have been giving evidence this afternoon, which is a matter of great import, and that that would, no doubt, have been covered by television. The fact is, however, that the Chamber is one of the most important places in the building, where Ministers are called to account. If this place is packed, it is more forbidding for Ministers. They have to get the nuts and bolts of their cases much more ordered in their minds before they come here. As many hon. Members have said, the advent of television will, of course, increase the democratic relationship with people outside. It will also make Ministers that bit more fearful of this place, which will be all to the good.
I have strong reservations about the idea of a dedicated channel. It seems to be a recipe for undermining the proposals and not for adding to them. I do not want Parliament to be put into an electronic ghetto to be seen by everyone for about five minutes in their lives, then switched off to become a memory. If we have confidence in ourselves and confidence in this place as the forum for the exchange of views and ideas we should have the confidence to put ourselves on a par with the rest of the other events reported by the media electronically on television.
We grumble about the press and about the way in which it reports us because it does not report the words of the particular individual. None the less, the press has access to the House. There was opposition to the access of Hansard and opposition to the access of radio—I can recall the debates and anxieties then and I can recall the packed House for Welsh Question Time on the first day that radio was introduced to the House. Radio has taken its place in our proceedings and television will play its part.
I shall vote for the report because I see it as the beginning of television making a proper, adequate report of this debating Chamber, which should be the important focus of attention in the nation's affairs.
9.45 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I concur with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). This issue is one of commonality across the party lines and I welcome that as this is a matter peculiar to the House itself.
648
Although the Committee has come in for some fair criticism and comment this evening, I believe that it has had a difficult but important task in trying to read the will of the House as expressed in February 1988. It has tried to draw a line between those who wanted no television and those who wanted the most liberal coverage of the House and in doing so it has struck the right balance. Although the report may not have pleased everyone, the experiment is worth a try and it should be seen as an experiment.
Before we vote tonight we should recall the principles which have been enunciated by a number of hon. Members tonight and which led the House to support the motion in February 1988. Those principles were repeated by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Televising the Chamber will have a demonstrable impact on the influence of Parliament over the Executive. To some extent that influence has slipped since the introduction of Select Committees, welcome as they are, in 1979. The power and influence of Government have grown. Why should we exercise a self-denying ordinance? Is it not somewhat patronising for us to say that politics should be left to us alone and that people outside are not interested? We seek their mandate and their support. We say that we should be accountable to the people, but we say that they should not be allowed to see what we do in this place.
There is a latent, pent-up demand—more so than some hon. Members have assessed—for televising the proceedings of the House. As has already been said, this matter should not be seen from the point of view of what the broadcasters wants to deliver as they may look at things in terms of the national numbers who watch their programmes. For the people of each region there are issues of great importance and those people should be entitled, not only to read and listen to the proceedings of the House, but to see and assess for themselves the mood of this place about decisions that affect their regions.
The guidelines that have been established and the rules of coverage proposed will enable a fair, true and balanced representation of this House to be shown. In Committee we sought to take account of the misgivings expressed in the numerous representations from hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Committee. We have set up the structure for the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit and have proposed a director of broadcasting in this House to allay some of the worst fears expressed.
If the rules prove to be too restrictive, the monitoring facility will allow those rules to be changed. It is interesting that, from this debate, it is clear that it is thought that the rules might be too restrictive and that the Committee should have been inclined to be more liberal, but those rules can be suitably amended.
The Committee gave proper emphasis to the importance of Select Committee work. Those Committees and the Standing Committees occupy much of the time of hon. Members, they are part of the proceedings of the House and they undertake important work. It is right and proper that coverage by the media and television should cover them as well.
The amendments which have been chosen by you, Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), should not commend themselves to the House. The first is essentially

649
a wrecking amendment and the latter—[Interruption] The latter amendment leaves the rules of coverage too wide to satisfy the House at this time.
Mr. Patrick Thompson rose—
Mr. Nelson: I shall not give way at this time, but I will explain why the first is a wrecking amendment. We are concerned with an experiment and the House was concerned that the Select Committee should bring forward recommendations for its implementation. Not unreasonably, it has tried to impose it by the autumn of this year.
Whatever British Aerospace or the hon. Member for Workington may say about the provision of a dedicated channel, which I would support in the longer term were we to have permanent arrangements, it is not a practical arrangement for the short term. If it were made a condition of the package of the main motion it might result in the whole experiment being dropped. It should be seen for what it is: a wrecking amendment, which should be dismissed by the House.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will take further the step which it embarked on in February 1988. A historic step can be taken tonight and I hope that the House will not turn back from it.
9.51 pm
Mr. Wakeham: This has been an interesting and well-informed debate, with contributions from members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members, representing a wide range of views. If I have taken one message from the debate, it is that hon. Members from both sides of the argument feel that the time has come for decisions.
The House is not being invited tonight to reopen the principle of televising the House. That argument was settled, for the time being, last February. We are concerned with the machinery for implementing the experiment. The report ensures that the House will have the chance to vote for or against the permanent televising at about this time next year. That is a point which I make to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)—and I have a shrewd suspicion about the way in which he will vote.
I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not attempt to respond to all the points made by hon. Members. There are a number of specific points and questions with which I shall seek to deal. I am grateful for the kind things said about me in various parts of the Chamber, particularly the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I spend most of my time trying to put him right on one thing or another, but it was a great pleasure to work with him in Committee, as it was with the other Committee members, and the advisers and Clerks who served us extremely well. I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that we learnt a lot from the witnesses who substantially improved our knowledge of the subject.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) admonished us for attaching too much weight and seriousness to the proceedings of the House. He told us that we were theatre. I thank him for his entertaining contribution.
I feel like saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that I feel a bit like the Irishman and would not necessarily have started from
650
here. I was against the experiment in the first place, and voted and spoke against it. I certainly did not persuade anybody to vote for it on the basis that the lighting would be one thing or another. The concerns which he expressed were directly expressed in paragraph 85 of our report, which stated that if any difficulties became evident during the experiment they could be looked at. We had a test of the lighting and were reasonably satisfied with the results, although, again, the experiment may offer us scope for changes.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) focused primarily on the iniquities, as he and his hon. Friends see it, of our electoral system, and made two points. He drew attention to what he called the Scottish dimension of the experiment. The Committee felt strongly that the Scottish affairs and concerns of other parts of the United Kingdom should be properly reflected, and we obtained assurances from the broadcasters on that point. The broadcasters specifically expressed interest in televising the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about monitoring the broadcast output. We are considering proposals for a comprehensive monitoring exercise during the experiment, which would include political balance and regional coverage among the items to be analysed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) all accused the Committee of being too timid, but for different reasons. Being accused of being reluctant and slow by those hon. Members and by my hon. Friend from different viewpoints convinces me that we have probably not got it too far wrong.
Before I finish, I want to say a word about the two amendments that have been selected. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) holds out the enticing prospect of a dedicated channel providing continuous coverage of our proceedings. I know that that proposition will hold appeal for many Members. I for one would very much like to have a dedicated channel, but I ask the House carefully to examine what the amendment means. If it were passed, the experiment could not take place unless a dedicated channel was established. The report makes it quite clear that, as no public money is available for this purpose, the idea of a dedicated channel can be realised only as a result of commercial decisions by the broadcasters. That is the present position; I am not talking about a dedicated channel at some time in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) argued his case skilfully, as did the hon. Member for Workington, and gave the House figures which purported to show that a dedicated channel was financially viable. My hon. Friend's and the hon. Gentlemen's enthusiasm is not matched at present by the broadcasters. Even they would agree that it would be quite wrong for the House to seek to second guess their judgement—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the right hon. Gentleman had heard me move my amendment, he would realise that it did not relate to terrestrial broadcasters: it is to do with a direct transmission system.
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that, but if the experiment cannot take place unless we have a dedicated channel some

651
broadcasters—commercial broadcasters, not necessarily existing ones—must finance it. If any broadcaster says that he wants to broadcast a satellite programme starting in October, I for one would be perfectly happy for him to do so. I am not stopping anyone doing so; anyone who wishes to apply can do so. I am suggesting that, if no one applies, that is not a case for not going ahead with the experiment.
Despite every opportunity, neither British Aerospace nor British Satellite Broadcasting came forward to us, or more importantly to the broadcasters, with a fully costed and worked-out formal position. To go broke on the basis of three letters to the hon. Member for Workington seems to me highly risky, to say the least. If the House passes the hon. Gentleman's amendment, it will in effect throw the whole experiment back into the melting pot of uncertainty and, possibly, of protracted delay. I therefore recommend that the House votes against amendment (c), although it is for individual right hon. and hon. Members to make up their own minds. [Interruption.] To answer the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who asked me whether I would vote for the main Question if the amendment were passed, I still would. That does not mean that it would not involve risks.
The other amendment that the House must decide upon is that moved in a characteristically thoughtful way by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), relating to the rules of coverage. Here the argument is simple. The Committee has recommended a framework of rules which strikes a balance between the strict Canadian model and the somewhat relaxed regime which applies in the other place. My hon. Friend is proposing significantly to relax the rules proposed by the Committee in a way that I do not think would lead to the sort of coverage of our proceedings that most hon. Members would want.
There is a further practical point. It is very much wiser to start as the Committee proposes with a fairly strict set of rules and the prospect of some relaxation as the experiment develops. If a convincing case can be made in the light of experience, that is well and good. I do not think that it would be quite so easy in practice to tighten up the rules once the experiment has begun. Therefore, I advise the House not to accept amendment (n).
It is now 16 months since the House voted in favour of an experiment in televising our proceedings. The report offers a sensible, balanced and practical way to implement the will of the House, and I recommend it to the House as it stands.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [9 June], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion and of the amendments thereto which had been selected by him.
Amendment proposed: (c), at end add
'provided that televised proceedings of the House are broadcast on a dedicated channel, unedited, from the start of the sitting to the rising of the House.'.—[Mr. Campbell-Savours.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 274.

Division No. 232]

[10 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ashby, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Atkinson, David

Bidwell, Sydney

652

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Kirkhope, Timothy

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Knapman, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Lawrence, Ivan

Burns, Simon

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Butler, Chris

Lord, Michael

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Mans, Keith

Carrington, Matthew

Marlow, Tony

Carttiss, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Moate, Roger

Clelland, David

Moss, Malcolm

Cohen, Harry

Mudd, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Mullin, Chris

Cox, Tom

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Cran, James

Page, Richard

Cummings, John

Pawsey, James

Dunn, Bob

Pendry, Tom

Emery, Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Rhodes James, Robert

Franks, Cecil

Riddick, Graham

Fry, Peter

Rooker, Jeff

Gale, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gill, Christopher

Shaw, David (Dover)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Gordon, Mildred

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Summerson, Hugo

Gregory, Conal

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Tracey, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Walden, George

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Hannam, John

Wall, Pat

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

Watts, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Wells, Bowen

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Wiggin, Jerry

Holt, Richard

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Wolfson, Mark

Irving, Charles

Janman, Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jessel, Toby

Mr. Nigel Spearing and

Kilfedder, James

Mrs Ann Clwyd.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boateng, Paul

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Allen, Graham

Boswell, Tim

Alton, David

Bottomley, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Amess, David

Bowis, John

Anderson, Donald

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Arbuthnot, James

Bright, Graham

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

Armstrong, Hilary

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Buckley, George J.

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Budgen, Nicholas

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Burt, Alistair

Ashton, Joe

Butterfill, John

Baldry, Tony

Caborn, Richard

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Barron, Kevin

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Batiste, Spencer

Cash, William

Battle, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Beckett, Margaret

Chapman, Sydney

Beith, A. J.

Chope, Christopher

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bellingham, Henry

Conway, Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbett, Robin

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cormack, Patrick

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Blair, Tony

Cousins, Jim

Blunkett, David

Critchley, Julian

653

Crowther, Stan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cryer, Bob

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Cunningham, Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Curry, David

Kennedy, Charles

Dalyell, Tam

Key, Robert

Darling, Alistair

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

Kirkwood, Archy

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Knox, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Latham, Michael

Day, Stephen

Leadbitter, Ted

Dixon, Don

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dobson, Frank

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Doran, Frank

Lightbown, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lilley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Litherland, Robert

Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Durant, Tony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Dykes, Hugh

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Eadie, Alexander

McCartney, Ian

Eastham, Ken

Macdonald, Calum A.

Eggar, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Fatchett, Derek

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Favell, Tony

Maclean, David

Fearn, Ronald

McLeish, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Flannery, Martin

McWilliam, John

Flynn, Paul

Madden, Max

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Forman, Nigel

Major, Rt Hon John

Forth, Eric

Malins, Humfrey

Foster, Derek

Maples, John

Fraser, John

Marland, Paul

Freeman, Roger

Maude, Hon Francis

French, Douglas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Meale, Alan

George, Bruce

Mellor, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Michael, Alun

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Mills, Iain

Gould, Bryan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mitchell, Sir David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grist, Ian

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Grocott, Bruce

Morgan, Rhodri

Ground, Patrick

Morley, Elliott

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Hague, William

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hanley, Jeremy

Murphy, Paul

Hardy, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Harris, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

O'Neill, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayward, Robert

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Patnick, Irvine

Hinchliffe, David

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hind, Kenneth

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howard, Michael

Portillo, Michael

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

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Prescott, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Price, Sir David

Howells, Geraint

Radice, Giles

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Rathbone, Tim

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Redmond, Martin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Redwood, John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Renton, Tim

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Richardson, Jo

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Ingram, Adam

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Irvine, Michael

Robertson, George

Jack, Michael

Rogers, Allan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rowe, Andrew

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Rowlands, Ted

654

Ruddock, Joan

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Thorne, Neil

Scott, Nicholas

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Turner, Dennis

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Short, Clare

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sims, Roger

Wallace, James

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Walley, Joan

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

Ward, John

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

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Warren, Kenneth

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, John

Soley, Clive

Widdecombe, Ann

Speller, Tony

Wilkinson, John

Squire, Robin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilson, Brian

Steel, Rt Hon David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stern, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis

Worthington, Tony

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Yeo, Tim

Stott, Roger

Straw, Jack

Tellers for the Noes:

Sumberg, David

Mr. Anthony Nelson and

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Austin Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (n), at end add
'except for recommendations (i), (iv) and (vi) in paragraph 39.'.—[Mr. Sims.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 243.

Division No. 233]

[10.14 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Alton, David

Grocott, Bruce

Armstrong, Hilary

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Ashby, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Harman, Ms Harriet

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hawkins, Christopher

Barron, Kevin

Hayes, Jerry

Battle, John

Haynes, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

Holt, Richard

Bermingham, Gerald

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Blair, Tony

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Blunkett, David

Irvine, Michael

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Irving, Charles

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Janman, Tim

Caborn, Richard

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Canavan, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Kennedy, Charles

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Kilfedder, James

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbett, Robin

Latham, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cox, Tom

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cryer, Bob

McCartney, Ian

Dalyell, Tarn

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Darling, Alistair

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Doran, Frank

Morgan, Rhodri

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Morley, Elliott

Eadie, Alexander

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fatchett, Derek

Morrison, Sir Charles

Fearn, Ronald

Mowlam, Marjorie

Flannery, Martin

Mudd, David

Flynn, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Gale, Roger

O'Neill, Martin

Gordon, Mildred

Page, Richard

Gregory, Conal

Prescott, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Price, Sir David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Quin, Ms Joyce

655

Rathbone, Tim

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Redmond, Martin

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Redwood, John

Wall, Pat

Rhodes James, Robert

Wallace, James

Riddick, Graham

Wareing, Robert N.

Robertson, George

Warren, Kenneth

Rooker, Jeff

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Sims, Roger

Wiggin, Jerry

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

Worthington, Tony

Soley, Clive

Steel, Rt Hon David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Miss Ann Widdecombe and

Summerson, Hugo

Mr. John Bowis.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

Allen, Graham

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Day, Stephen

Amess, David

Dixon, Don

Anderson, Donald

Dobson, Frank

Arbuthnot, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dunn, Bob

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Durant, Tony

Ashton, Joe

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Eastham, Ken

Baldry, Tony

Eggar, Tim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Favell, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Beckett, Margaret

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Beith, A. J.

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bell, Stuart

Forman, Nigel

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, Eric

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Foster, Derek

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bidwell, Sydney

Franks, Cecil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fraser, John

Boateng, Paul

Freeman, Roger

Boscawen, Hon Robert

French, Douglas

Boswell, Tim

Fry, Peter

Bottomley, Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

George, Bruce

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bright, Graham

Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

Golding, Mrs Llin

Browne, John (Winchester)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Buckley, George J.

Gould, Bryan

Burns, Simon

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Chris

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butterfill, John

Grist, Ian

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Ground, Patrick

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Cash, William

Hanley, Jeremy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hannam, John

Chapman, Sydney

Hardy, Peter

Chope, Christopher

Harris, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Haselhurst, Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Clelland, David

Hayward, Robert

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cohen, Harry

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Conway, Derek

Hinchliffe, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hind, Kenneth

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howard, Michael

Couchman, James

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

Cousins, Jim

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cran, James

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cummings, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Curry, David

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

656

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Portillo, Michael

Jack, Michael

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jessel, Toby

Radice, Giles

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Renton, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Richardson, Jo

Key, Robert

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Knapman, Roger

Rowlands, Ted

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ruddock, Joan

Knox, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Leadbitter, Ted

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Scott, Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lilley, Peter

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Litherland, Robert

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lord, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Maclean, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Squire, Robin

Madden, Max

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stern, Michael

Major, Rt Hon John

Stevens, Lewis

Malins, Humfrey

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mans, Keith

Straw, Jack

Maples, John

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Maude, Hon Francis

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thorne, Neil

Meale, Alan

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mellor, David

Tracey, Richard

Michael, Alun

Turner, Dennis

Mills, Iain

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Waldegrave, Hon William

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Walden, George

Moss, Malcolm

Walley, Joan

Murphy, Paul

Ward, John

Neale, Gerrard

Wells, Bowen

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wheeler, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wilson, Brian

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Oppenheim, Phillip

Winterton, Nicholas

Paice, James

Wolfson, Mark

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Yeo, Tim

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Tellers for the Noes:

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Mr. Austin Mitchell and

Pawsey, James

Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Pendry, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 69.

Division No. 234]

[10.25 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Armstrong, Hilary

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Allen, Graham

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Alton, David

Ashton, Joe

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Atkinson, David

Amess, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Anderson, Donald

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

657

Barron, Kevin

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Flannery, Martin

Battle, John

Flynn, Paul

Beckett, Margaret

Fookes, Dame Janet

Beith, A. J.

Forman, Nigel

Bell, Stuart

Forth, Eric

Bellingham, Henry

Foster, Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fraser, John

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

Freeman, Roger

Bermingham, Gerald

French, Douglas

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fry, Peter

Bidwell, Sydney

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

George, Bruce

Blair, Tony

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Blunkett, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Boateng, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Boswell, Tim

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bottomley, Peter

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Grist, Ian

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grocott, Bruce

Brazier, Julian

Ground, Patrick

Bright, Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hague, William

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Buckley, George J.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burt, Alistair

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hardy, Peter

Caborn, Richard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Harris, David

Canavan, Dennis

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carrington, Matthew

Haynes, Frank

Cash, William

Hayward, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Chapman, Sydney

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hinchliffe, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hind, Kenneth

Cohen, Harry

Holt, Richard

Conway, Derek

Howard, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Corbett, Robin

Howells, Geraint

Cormack, Patrick

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Couchman, James

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cryer, Bob

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cummings, John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cunningham, Dr John

Ingram, Adam

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Irvine, Michael

Curry, David

Jack, Michael

Dalyell, Tarn

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Darling, Alistair

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kennedy, Charles

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Key, Robert

Day, Stephen

Kilfedder, James

Dixon, Don

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dobson, Frank

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Doran, Frank

Kirkwood, Archy

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Latham, Michael

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Durant, Tony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dykes, Hugh

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Eadie, Alexander

Lightbown, David

Eastham, Ken

Lilley, Peter

Eggar, Tim

Litherland, Robert

Fatchett, Derek

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Favell, Tony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Fearn, Ronald

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McCartney, Ian

658

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Rowlands, Ted

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Ruddock, Joan

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Maclean, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

McLeish, Henry

Scott, Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

McWilliam, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Madden, Max

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Major, Rt Hon John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Short, Clare

Mans, Keith

Sims, Roger

Maples, John

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

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Maude, Hon Francis

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Meale, Alan

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mellor, David

Soley, Clive

Michael, Alun

Speller, Tony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Squire, Robin

Mitchell, Sir David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Steel, Rt Hon David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stern, Michael

Morgan, Rhodri

Stevens, Lewis

Morley, Elliott

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Straw, Jack

Morrison, Sir Charles

Sumberg, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mudd, David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mullin, Chris

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Murphy, Paul

Thorne, Neil

Neale, Gerrard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tracey, Richard

Nicholls, Patrick

Turner, Dennis

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

O'Neill, Martin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waldegrave, Hon William

Paice, James

Wall, Pat

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wallace, James

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Walley, Joan

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Ward, John

Portillo, Michael

Wareing, Robert N.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Prescott, John

Wheeler, John

Price, Sir David

Widdecombe, Ann

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Radice, Giles

Wilson, Brian

Rathbone, Tim

Winnick, David

Redwood, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Renton, Tim

Worthington, Tony

Richardson, Jo

Yeo, Tim

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robertson, George

'Mr. Austin Mitchell and

Rogers, Allan

Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Rowe, Andrew

NOES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gill, Christopher

Ashby, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hannam, John

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

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

Budgen, Nicholas

Hawkins, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Butler, Chris

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Carttiss, Michael

Irving, Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Janman, Tim

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jessel, Toby

Clelland, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Bob

Kirkhope, Timothy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Knapman, Roger

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lawrence, Ivan

Franks, Cecil

Leadbitter, Ted

659

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Redmond, Martin

Lord, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Marland, Paul

Riddick, Graham

Marlow, Tony

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mills, Iain

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Moate, Roger

Skinner, Dennis

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Page, Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Patnick, Irvine

Summerson, Hugo

Pawsey, James

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Pendry, Tom

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walden, George

660

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Tellers for the Noes

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Roger Sale and

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. James Cram.

Wilkinson. John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 141).

Insider Trading
10.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7310/87 and 8810/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 22nd May 1989 relating to insider trading; and supports the Government's view that a practical and workable Directive would demonstrate Member States' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading.
The draft insider dealing directive has two principal purposes. First, it will require member states to make insider dealing unlawful. Secondly, it will require them to co-operate in obtaining and exchanging information for enforcement purposes.
The House will recollect that it was a Conservative Government who, in 1973, first brought forward legislation to make insider dealing illegal in the United Kingdom. It was this Government who, in 1980, saw the measure on to the statute book. Britain was among the leaders in Europe in legislating in this area. Since 1980 we have made further changes, in the Financial Services Act 1986, with the aim of intensifying the drive against insider dealing.
Both in the drafting of legislation and in its operation, insider dealing law is intensely difficult, as every country in the world which has enacted it has discovered. In the discussions on the directive, I have been keen to ensure that the directive reflects our considerable success in enforcing the law. Like other member states, we sought a measure that was precise, that was practical and that was enforceable. That was not the case with the original draft. But I believe that, as a result of detailed discussions in Brussels, we are very close to a text that achieves those aims.
I turn now to the text of the directive itself. At its centre are the definitions of primary and secondary insider, and the prohibition on trading on inside information. The proposals put forward last year were very broad and vague. They did not require, for example, a primary insider to know that the information that he had was inside information, but they would have caught as primary insiders people whom we regard as secondary insiders—or even not as insiders at all. The text simply prohibited the taking advantage of insider information in buying or selling any transferable securities.
That all added up to a text that went very substantially beyond our law. The text was very wide ranging and in our judgment impossible to operate successfully. It would have greatly increased the area of uncertainty for honest people without making it any easier, and possibly much more difficult, to bring wrongdoers to book. As a result of lengthy and robust discussions in Brussels, we have now arrived at a text which reflects our own experience in this area of legislation.
Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to bring in criminal or civil sanctions with respect to the prohibitions included in the directive?
Mr. Maude: As my hon. Friend will know, our present law operates by way of criminal sanctions and, as I hope I am outlining, the directive, as it is emerging, will not go
662
significantly beyond what our present law requires, save in one area to which I shall refer. In those circumstances, there will certainly be no need for us to contemplate legislating or enacting this by way of civil rather than criminal sanctions. However, there may quite independently of that be a case for considering whether some sort of civil sanctions provide a better and more flexible means of enforcing the law in that area.
At the same time as arriving at a text that reflects broadly our experience, it will involve a modest strengthening of our law to prohibit certain insider transactions that are not properly caught at present. The definition of primary insider reflecting our own experience is much more precise, practicable and enforceable. The primary insider is prohibited from taking advantage in full knowledge of the facts. It has a new definition of primary insider that is clear and more restrictive than the original draft, thus helping to restore the balance between primary and secondary insiders. The text now prohibits taking advantage of inside information in buying or selling transferable securities to which the information relates, and that rider was missing in the earlier text. Each of the three key problems here has been resolved.
Our present law has been much criticised from time to time for its complexity—for example, the prohibition on a primary insider dealing is more than 100 words long—and on some occasions that complexity has not been helpful in the pursuit of offenders.
I have welcomed the opportunity presented by the Brussels discussions of going for rather more clarity and simplicity and at the same time a modest strengthening of our law to prohibit certain insider transactions that are not properly caught at present.
I cannot stress too much that it is extremely important that the prohibition on insider trading does not unintentionally and accidentally forbid such ordinary and proper business practices as a takeover, or any large purchase or sale of securities, but, at one stage, the draft text did this. I can tell the House that those practical problems, together with others relating to analysts, to market markers, and to permitted stabilisation activities, have all been resolved.
The second of the directive's strands is increased international co-operation. Insider dealing, like other financial frauds, is no respecter of frontiers. It is about as easy to insider deal on the London stock exchange from Paris as it is, for instance, from Norwich. International co-operation between regulators is already, in general, good. Again, Britain is among the leaders in Europe in that respect. The Companies Bill currently being considered in Committee contains special provisions for my Department to assist overseas regulators.
I should also mention one thing that is not in the directive. At one stage considerable, and justified, anxiety was created among companies at the suggestion that the directive would require them to release much more information. They might, absurdly enough, have had to announce that they had begun to think about making a decision before being in a position to take that decision or to act upon it. That would simply have flooded the market with useless information, while harming the ability of companies to conduct their own business in a sensible and practical manner. A proper flow of information to the market is, of course, vital, but it should be meaningful information.

663
I am glad to tell the House that the directive now contains a provision that, while it may modestly increase the flow of information to the market, does so in a sensible and contained way.
I should also tell the House that I propose, in implementing the directive, to redeem a pledge made by this Government in 1985: that insider dealing will be made an offence in all securities, not just corporate securities and options and futures based on them. That will bring within the scope of the legislation gilts and other securities.
The motion invites the House to support the Government's view that a practical and workable directive would demonstrate member states' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading. I believe that this is such a directive. We are and remain determined to take vigorous action against insider dealing. I commend the motion to the House.
10.45 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: There should be no doubt that insider dealing is a major crime. Many have claimed that there are no real victims and that prices are merely driven up—that is a natural operation of capital involving the necessary winners and losers. They suggest that the principles of the free market allow for people to take advantage of such a situation to gain profit. Fortunately, however, increasingly that view is held by the minority. The majority has concluded—I believe that it is the opinion of the House—that insider dealing is a form of theft. The victims sell shares, for example, on a false basis to people in possession of privileged information that will clearly affect the price of the share.
The crime also involves a betrayal of trust, in that people use secret information to deceive and to enrich themselves. On many occasions the loser, as we know, is the investor representing the interests of ordinary people —perhaps he looks after the savings, assurances or small shareholdings of such people. Those buying and selling shares without access to such secret information are often at the mercy of their opponents. Over a short time chain reactions can occur, often across national frontiers, as a result of the electronic, internationalised market, which causes great damage to unsuspecting individuals and firms.
Given the scale of insider trading scandals in the United Kingdom in recent years, it was right to take action. The Government introduced legislation in 1980 and that was consolidated in the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 when criminal sanctions were introduced. Since then the maximum prison sentence for insider trading has increased from two to seven years, although the number of prosecutions for insider trading has been small despite the existence, in theory, of those penalties. I shall return to that issue later. We believe that the practical control and punishment of insider dealing is far from satisfactory currently.
We welcome the EEC directive and we shall not divide the House on it. It would be rather hard to take exception to the carefully worded motion on the Order Paper. It is important that in the large European market that is supposed to become a reality in 1992 there should be systems to control and to punish insider trading.
664
We welcome both the co-ordination of rules and the obligation to exchange information. It would also be highly unsatisfactory if we were trying to bring successful prosecutions for insider dealing in the large European market when much securities trading was being done across the national boundaries of national authorities which had weaker rules or did not regard insider trading as a serious offence. It is clear that if standards are more lax elsewhere there may be a temptation for people to do business in other financial centres, which could mean a move towards a general reduction in standards rather than the improvement which we wish to see.
It is also worrying that some other EC countries do not have adequate rules on insider trading at present. As I understand it, in addition to the United Kingdom, only Denmark and France penalise insider trading. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the attitude of other countries towards the directive? He seemed to indicate that agreement was likely and that many of the difficulties had been sorted out. Have any of the member countries any serious objections and are those which, to date, have not had rules on insider trading happy at the prospect of an EC directive on the issue?
The issue matters to us more than to many other countries because our securities market is by far the most important and is for us a much more important means of raising equity finance than it is in other EC countries. Therefore, although the treaty base being used for this is article 100A and although I fully understand that that article is used to govern internal market decisions, it would not be a good idea if we were outvoted on the directive because our interest is so great. Fortunately, that does not seem likely.
I note that there was a change of treaty base governing the directive. It has not been fully explained why it was necessary to change the base. Will the Minister tell us whether doing so has had any practical effect? As I understand it, both article 54 and article 100A rely on the majority voting system.
Will the Minister also give a few more details about the timetable, and how certain, if anything can be said to be certain, agreement is likely to be? I believe that there is to be a meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers on 19 June at which this may be considered and that there is likely to be a meeting of officials before that. Will the Minister say whether that is so? Has there been ministerial representation at the various meetings to discuss the directive? How recent was that? Will there be ministerial, rather than merely official, representation when the subject is next discussed?
The fact that we have the most experience of trying to tackle the problems of insider trading within the EC does not mean that we have been particularly successful. On recent evidence, we have been far from successful. I hope that the directive will be more effective than our existing provisions. The major weakness of our regime is its failure to bring prosecutions. We have the rules, authorities have powers, evidence often seems to be available, but people are not charged and convicted.
As has been mentioned by Opposition Members in previous debates on this subject, we have reason to believe that the practice is more widespread than is usually thought. To back that up, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and women have pointed to the high proportion of takeover bids that are preceded by erratic movements in the share prices of the companies involved.
Mr. Tim Smith: I understand the hon. Lady's frustration at the lack of prosecutions in this area, but does she think it enough to say that there seems to be sufficient evidence? Is not the problem that often there is not sufficient evidence and that it is difficult to obtain hard evidence in support of a prosecution?
Ms. Quin: There is evidence, but it is often not hard enough to make a prosecution stick. A great deal of worry is expressed in the press and elsewhere about the small number of prosecutions, and there is a feeling that the problem is not really being t ackled. I refer the House to an article in The Independent of 16 November of last year:
"Despite the major play the DTI has made out of its campaign against insider dealing, the crackdown has in reality been unimpressive"—
Mr. Cash: The hon. Lady will also note that in that same article it was stated of the Opposition spokesman that he drew
"attention…to what he believed to be 17 prima facie cases of insider dealing. His analysis of the problem, however, would certainly have caused some hilarity among professional insider dealers. He had taken 17 cases where a company's share price rose sharply ahead of a bid announcement. This, he said, was evidence of a leak and massive insider dealing."
In the part of the article to which the hon. Lady was not going to refer, the attitude of the Opposition spokesman was seriously criticised.
Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman must claim to be a mind reader. Since I had just begun to quote from the article, I do not know how he can say with such authority that I was not going to refer to a section that appeared later. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that The Independent article takes a line similar to one in the Evening Standard and to yet another in The Economist. The hon. Gentleman may be about to wave another sheaf of articles at me, but I assure him that I am not quoting an isolated instance. I am quoting several newspapers and journals—
Mr. Maude: Earlier, the hon. Lady referred to evidence of widespread unprosecuted insider dealing. Does she accept that the mere existence of a movement in shares shortly before a takeover bid is announced is by no means conclusive evidence of insider dealing? It may simply be evidence of the bidding company building up a platform for its bid in advance of announcing its offer. There is nothing improper in that.
Ms. Quin: I did not claim that there was. I claimed that there had been such a large number of such movements that it raised questions, which I am sure the Minister would concede.
Mr. Maude: I must press this. The hon. Lady said that there was evidence of widespread unprosecuted insider dealing. The only evidence she has referred to, apart from quoting a comment in a newspaper which persuaded none of us, was the movement of some shares before a bid. I have pointed out, and she seems tacitly to accept, that there is a perfectly plausible and proper explanation for that. I ask again: where is the evidence of this widespread unprosecuted insider dealing?
Ms. Quin: Has the Minister examined all such cases of movements and is he entirely satisfied that there have been no irregularities? Unless he has, I cannot be absolutely reassured by what he says.
Mr. Maude: Of course I have. The hon. Lady should inform herself a little better about these matters. If there is untoward movement in share prices or any evidence of dealing in advance of a bid, the stock exchange's insider dealing group conducts an investigation. If there is prima facie evidence of insider dealing, it is referred to my Department. There have been a great many such cases since the powers to appoint investigators under the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force. These inspectors have draconian powers—to quote the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords—to gain evidence. I can assure the hon. Lady that all cases are properly investigated. If there is any evidence of impropriety it is pursued relentlessly.
Ms. Quin: I am certainly prepared to consider what the Minister has said. In preparing for this debate, I had to look back at the various debates that have taken place. I found that the Opposition did not seem to be satisfied with what seemed to be rather complacent comments by the Minister.
Perhaps I may continue to deal with the article in The Independent, even though that is proving difficult in view of the many interventions. The article claims:
"There are now 18 investigations under way and a further seven cases of suspected insider dealing under consideration. Some prominent City names are said to be involved. It is a fair bet, though, that few if any of these investigations will be addressing the real, endemic problem of insider dealing—that of the large-scale professional insider dealing rings. It is well known in the City that such rings, which often operate on an international scale covering a number of different markets, exist and they are big business: finding them and successfully prosecuting their members is another matter."
That seems to call for a clear system on an international level as well as on a national level. Presumably that is why most of us are in favour of the European directive.
Mr. Cash: Earlier the hon. Lady and the Minister said that the directive contains provisions to deal with matters relating to co-operation between member states and third party states as well. I do not understand the hon. Lady's point. Surely she understands that if the directive contains provisions dealing with the points raised in The Independent that ought to deal with the matter.
Ms. Quin: That assumes that the directive has been satisfactorily completed. I am raising matters that I hope will be taken into account in the final form of the directive. The directive has still not been completely agreed by the Council of Ministers and the debate is about putting forward ideas which we hope will be given due weight, whether or not they are actually printed in the directive at present. I hope that the directive will make the system simpler and clearer, that its provisions will be easy to enforce and that prosecutions will be easier.
There has been a mixed reaction to the directive. In the debate in the European Parliament, MEPs from Government and Opposition parties in the United Kingdom supported the directive. I pay tribute to my colleague, the MEP for Derbyshire, who presented the report on the subject and received widespread support from the other MEPs. There has been City anger at the European Community proposals which have been described as too wide and too far reaching.
I have received a brief from the Confederation of British Industry, as I am sure have other hon. Members. It

667
deals with the proposed directive, and shows that the CBI feels that there are still considerable problems of definition. The CBI brief says:
"The CBI, therefore, asks Members to ensure that:
When the Directive is adopted—and it has to be written into UK law—there will not be any material alteration to the present UK law."
That does not seem to be a suggestion that I can support. If an alteration would mean an improvement, I do not see why there should not be a "material alteration" to the United Kingdom law.
Mr. Maude: Would the hon. Lady like to suggest the specific improvements that she would like to see us have embodied in the directive or passed into our own law?
Ms. Quin: There may be improved ways to get information and bring about prosecutions. The Government seem to be satisfied with the way things have worked out. Despite the barracking that I received when I referred to press accounts of this subject, I do not believe that all the articles in the press are unjustified or that the Government's complacency is justified.
Some final comments on the directive have been made by the Law Society, in particular in an article in the Law Society's Gazette of 2 June, which I wonder whether the Minister has seen. He is not responding, so I do not know whether he has. If he has not, I recommend that he does, because the submission from the Law Society makes valid points about the problems of definition and about the scope of the directive. It also makes points about the extra-territorial implications of the directive, and the Law Society is concerned that the directive appears to contemplate only transactions in which the EEC territories are involved. It asks about what happens when the insider is within a member state, but the transaction is carried out in a non-member state. Has that aspect been considered in the EEC negotiations?
The Government's explanatory memorandum, submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 9 September 1987, says in point 20:
"The provisions in the proposal which relate to co-operation between Member States will need to be considered in the light of other initiatives in this field—in particular, the possible convention of the Council of Europe."
What progress has there been in the Council of Europe? What implications will negotiations within the Council of Europe have for the passing of this directive?
The Government's explanatory memorandum also says that the United Kingdom has signed memoranda of understanding on the exchange of regulatory information in the financial services sector with the United States. Will that agreement extend to other EEC countries if the directive is agreed?
There remain problems about the directive that need to be sorted out. Of themselves, they do not negate the need for such a directive. The European national moves to stamp out insider trading are vital, but they also have to mean that our system becomes more rather than less effective. If this is the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels, we shall welcome the directive.
11.7 pm
Mr. William Cash: The motion invites us to support
"the Government's view that a practical and workable Directive would demonstrate Member States' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading."
I shall not go into all the details, because most of them are in the explanatory memorandum, but a considerable number of ambiguities need to be resolved before 19 June. This excellent document is quite remarkable in its way. It is the first time that I can remember an explanatory memorandum that has gone into such detail. It gives advice to the House, or those who wish to read these things, as to the manner in which the original proposals have been amended as they have gone through the various stages.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) berated my hon. Friend the Minister for perhaps not reading an article by the Law Society, published on 2 June. Judging by her concluding remarks, I have grave doubts as to whether she has read the explanatory memorandum of 22 May 1989. She referred to one in September 1987, but the important bit is the memorandum of May 1989, which came to the Select Committee on European Legislation, contained those remarks to which I have referred, and made it clear that considerable progress had been made. However, there are still a number of problems with the directive, some of which are inherent in it and some of which, no doubt, can be resolved within the framework when it is implemented under the European Communities Act 1972.
Will the new formulation about knowledge, which is the context in which insider dealing arises, impute knowledge only where Chinese walls have been breached? I appreciate that that is a fairly technical question, but it is important that hon. Members clearly understand it. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the directive will enable us to continue to permit takeovers. He also answered my earlier question about whether it would be dealt with under criminal or civil law.
An interesting article appeared in The Economist today criticising the federal court of New York for the manner in which it is trying to impose its sanctions extra-territorially outside the United States under rules devised there. It raises an important question about legal reciprocity. As I said in the Committee considering the Financial Services Bill, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and I sat some years ago, when dealing with international law—and I made this point in an article that I wrote in "Lloyd's log" as well—if one is dealing with a small global village, there must be some parity between different legislative systems, because at the press of a button one can effect transactions of immense complexity. Insider dealing depends on when and how knowledge was acquired. Courts have experienced difficulty about the meaning of the words "knowledge obtained". I am glad to see the Attorney-General nodding, because an important case was considered quite recently. To fix the liability in a manner that will give rise to a prosecution that will stand muster it is essential, first, that one is sufficiently certain about the law; secondly, that the prosecuting authority is prepared to act effectively; and, thirdly, because of the nature of international transactions in a small global village, that there is some relationship between legal systems.

669
Serious doubt has been expressed about the vires of the treaty. We are aware of something called the vires committee, which is a forum not of medical but legal diagnosis. I believe that it has been considering carefully the way in which article 100A is being put forward as the treaty base for the directive. If we do not try to restrain the competence of the Commission—the Prime Minister made this point recently about the tobacco industry—when it tries to go beyond the lines of the treaty, we shall be in serious trouble. The European Court of Justice has a tendency towards political integration, as I have said on many occasions. It is essential that we ensure that the treaty base is the proper one.
The legal adviser to the Select Committee on European Legislation criticised the use of article 100A. I understand that the Government gave an assurance to the Committee that they would provide a statement on the manner in which the treaty base was being dealt with. I am not aware that such a statement has been produced, but I hope that it will be before our meeting on Wednesday. If we are to do our job properly, it is important that we are fully aware of the basis on which the treaty will be used, and this includes the Single European Act.
The question is: who does one prosecute? There still appears to be confusion on this important .question. Is it the individual or is it the company? It appears from the explanatory memorandum that it is the individual. The British Bankers Association sent me a letter today showing that it thought that it could apply to companies as well. This matter should be resolved. Perhaps there is a simple answer, but there still appears to be some uncertainty.
It is essential that we remove ambiguities and confusion. This measure will be an important ingredient in the fight against criminal insider dealing in the Community. Other countries do not have these laws. We have had them since 1980 and we must ensure that they are used effectively. I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister on the manner in which the matter has been dealt with so far, but there is considerable scope for removing much of the remaining uncertainty.
11.16 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I support this fairly general, straightforward and simple Government motion on insider trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said, I do not think that any of us would deny the need for legislation. As steps are taken towards an internal market, it is obvious that legislation is needed across the Community.
I have never traded on the stock exchange. I have to rely on what others, including Conservative Members, tell me happens there. That is not to say that I believe everything that I am told. It is a fiendish and difficult area in which to legislate. The Government's legislation and the development of explanatory memorandums over the past few years as this proposed directive has been discussed at European level can only reinforce our feelings about the difficulties.
Questions have been raised about the legal base. An extract dated 7 June from the 24th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation for the 1988–89 Session was placed in the Vote Office today. It said that in its 23rd report the Committee recommended "further
670
consideration" of two documents—one relating to insider trading, and the other containing amendments to the original draft directive. It asked the Government
"to submit to the Committee, ahead of the debate, a statement of its position on the proposed choice of treaty base and the reasons why it no longer considers Article 54(3)(g) to be appropriate, as its earlier Explanatory Memoranda had not covered this point.
This statement has now been received from the Department of Trade and Industry and is reproduced as an Appendix to this paragraph."
I will not read out the Department's three-point explanation, but I will say that it seems to be an extremely sensible interpretation of article 54(3)(g) and its shortcomings in covering the draft directive. Article 100A, which deals with moves towards the internal market, seems the most sensible step to take.
In considering the difficulties that still exist, paragraph 35iii on page 9 of the explanatory memorandum mentions
"the uncertainty about the position of authorised stabilisation operations."
As I understand it, they have been custom and practice on the British stock exchange. From what I have read, they seem to be a reasonably harmless way of trying to establish markets for trading in companies that are new to the stock exchange. I would be interested, purely for information, to know what the Minister feels is the likelihood of proposals in the draft directive which would take account of that point, or whether there are any countries that feel so strongly about the matter that they would not consider such proposals. However, as decisions are being made by qualified majority, there will be an opportunity to carry the proposals forward.
On the issue of just when insider information is misused, there seem still to be areas that require clarification. I found the explanatory memorandum tremendously helpful in setting out the way in which the proposal and the nuances of earlier references in the directive have been changed. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for a lay person such as myself to follow the memorandum because it is nine pages long. It would be beneficial to hon. Members if the explanatory memorandum took the form of a comparison of the earlier version of the draft directive with the latest version.
Mr. Cash: I share that thought with the hon. Gentleman because I believe that it is important that people should be able to make a reasonable assessment. There is a way of dealing with the problem which is known as a Keeling schedule. It shows, in heavy black type, the amendments made by reference to the original, so one can then see the document as a whole and also the differences that have been introduced. That would be useful for legislation taken on the Floor of the House and for legislation that is taken in the Standing Committees on European Community documents.
Mr. Griffiths: The amended form of the draft directive is presented in the European Parliament papers in the form of two columns. One can read the original directive and any changes are set out opposite. The word "unchanged" is printed where the draft has remained the same. If the Government gave us a copy of the amended directive as a single document, together with all the valuable points that are made in the explanatory memorandum of the way in which further changes have been incorporated following discussions in Brussels, it would be useful in dealing with

671
legislation. I found it difficult earlier today and over the weekend to sort out exactly what the proposal was and what changes had been made.
I refer also to the article on insider trading in the Law Society's Gazette, No. 22, which was provided by the helpful research department in the Library and which was posted on the board this afternoon.
I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) about the extra-terrestrial implications of the way in which the directive is intended to work. The writer of the Law Society article, Dr. Janet Dine, of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and a member of the company law committee, is of the opinion that under the terms of the directive as drafted someone who has committed an offence in Britain on the Paris stock exchange may have to be extradited to Paris for the case to be heard.
If that is the case, it is a drawback in the directive. There should be some way of framing the provisions to allow the case to be heard either in the state where the person concerned lives or where he or she has initiated the offence of insider trading. As I am neither a stockbroker nor a lawyer, I do not know whether the concept of the European legal space, which is referred to so often in the context of the development of the single market and other ideas on closer co-operation, could be useful in a directive of this nature.
The Minister said that satisfactory agreement had been reached over exactly what information needs to be published and at what stage when a company is thinking about a takeover bid, but I wonder whether that agreement also covers issues relating to the disclosure of an offence. Article 2(b) of the amended directive prevents a director recommending that his company should bid for another company when he has insider information concerning that target as it would prevent the director of a target company from selling issues when he has similar information. Can the Minister tell us anything about that?
I turn to the vexed question of the effectiveness of our legislation. Several articles have been referred to, all of which I have read, if not digested entirely. One in particular struck me as saying something that deserves at least a response from the Minister. It was an article in The Economist on 15 October 1988 relating to the activities in buying options in Consolidated Gold Fields before Minorco's £3 million bid for that company. The Economist was of the opinion that if the DTI had used sections 442, 444 and 445 of the Companies Act 1985, it could have taken action against the insider trading that The Economist claims was happening at that time. Unlike the other reference in The Economist this week, glowing reference is made to the activities of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States where nominee accounts can be blocked when there is some difficulty in establishing exactly who is operating on the market. ConsGold tried to get information from Liechtenstein and Liberian banks that were involved in the process but it was unable to do so, naturally enough.
Mr. Tim Smith: Instead of reading articles in newspapers, why does not the hon. Gentleman try reading the Companies Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986? If he did so, he would discover that the Companies Act provides precisely the sort of power that he has been
672
describing to disfranchise shares. I understand that that power was used only the other day when the identity of the beneficial owners could not be established. The Financial Services Act contains extremely draconian powers to deal with insider trading.
Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that, on the basis of the powers that are available in the Companies Act 1985, a claim was being made that the Department of Trade and Industry had failed to act appropriately in respect of ConsGold. I am asking the Minister to comment on the accusations that have been directed against the DTI.
Mr. Richard Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman checked them out?
Mr. Griffiths: I am checking them out by asking the Minister to tell us exactly what the Department did at the time of the ConsGold affair. Did it think about implementing sections 442, 444, and 445 of the Companies Act? The Economist cannot be described as a mischief maker for the fair operation of free markets. It seemed that there was some weight in what it was reporting or that the Minister would be able to quell the fears to which it was drawing attention.
Mr. Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman checked this out?
Mr. Griffiths: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would rise and say something directly to me through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, instead of muttering.
Mr. Holt: Did the hon. Gentleman carry out any research? Did he contact The Economist and make any attempt to understand that which he is talking about?
Mr. Griffiths: I know exactly what I am talking about. I am referring to the claims made in The Economist and I am asking the Minister to comment upon them. A substantial accusation has been made, for we know that the buying options amounted to about £15 million. Against that background, it seems appropriate to ask the Minister whether he thinks that something along the lines of the SEC of the United States would be a viable option on the European scene.
11.33 pm
Mr. Maude: This has been a short but enjoyable debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for the serious nature of their contributions to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of the serious defects of the text at earlier stages. I am happy to be able to reassure him that by dint of careful negotiation those defects have been removed. As for Chinese walls, I can give him the assurance that knowledge under the directive is imputed only where it exists. The anxiety which was widespread and justifiable at an earlier stage has, I believe, been removed. My hon. Friend raised another anxiety about whether a company might be found to be guilty of insider dealing under the directive. The answer to that is no. That is another matter which has been resolved satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked about stabilisation. He properly referred to it as a legitimate practice in the market that exists by custom and practice. It is formally legitimised and closely regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986 or by regulations made under that Act. He will be relieved to know that further amendments to the text made during discussions

673
remove the anxiety properly felt on that score. The hon. Gentleman made a few remarks about the explanatory memorandum that I submitted. He seemed to criticise it for being excessively lengthy, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford complimented me on the way—
Mr. Win Griffiths: What I said was that I found the memorandum extremely helpful but that it would have been more helpful if the changes described in the memorandum had been set alongside the appropriate parts of the amended directive so we could see clearly what changes had been made.
Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was complimentary about the way in which the explanatory memorandum was framed. The difficulty about the suggestion that was made is that the working papers on which discussions are held are confidential, and properly regarded as such by all the member states and by the Commission. That helps to ensure that member states are free to express their views in a sensible environment but means that it is often not possible to make draft texts available.
The hon. Member for Bridgend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a number of useful and interesting suggestions about the way in which the scrutiny programme might be improved, and I should like, if I may, to consider carefully whether we can give effect to them, because we aim to be as helpful as we can in making the process of scrutiny work.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend said that it was essential that we should maintain confidentiality, and gave reasons that we have heard so often before. Does he not agree that this matter is greatly overplayed and that it would be infinitely better if the texts were made available at an earlier stage? I am sure that he will be aware that the Leader of the House is considering whether that could be done. That would allow us—as happens in the Danish Parliament—the opportunity to examine the texts as they emerge so that we did not constantly have to deal with matters that were shrouded in secrecy.
Mr. Maude: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I undertake to consider it seriously, along with the other points that he made.
Let me deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). She asked about the timetable for further progress. I believe that it is intended that the matter should be discussed by ECOFIN next Monday, when the United Kingdom will be represented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She asked about other countries' views. They must answer for themselves, although I can tell her that a number of countries have had difficulties along the way —many of them similar to the difficulties that I have outlined. Broadly speaking, those difficulties have been resolved, although some important issues remain unresolved. It may well be possible to resolve all those matters so that the measure can be agreed before very long.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked who had represented the United Kingdom in the discussions. There have been discussions both in the working group and to some extent in COREPER. Ministers do not attend those
674
meetings and it would be impossible for them to do so. Nevertheless, I have kept in close touch with the progress of those discussions. I have made sure that Ministers are informed fully and have directed the process of negotiation. It is by no means uncommon—as the hon. Lady, with her experience of these matters, will know—for something to be agreed without Ministers' attending meetings or discussing the measure formally at any stage. That does not mean to say that it happens without Ministers' informing the process of discussion, as I assure her they have in this case.
The hon. Lady referred to the role of the European Parliament and expressed pride that her colleague the MEP for Derbyshire had produced a report on insider trading. I have to tell her that the European Parliament considered the initial draft, which was, frankly, a mess: it was unworkable, it was too broad, it would not have been effective and it would have jeopardised the position of many perfectly respectable, legitimate and honest people. Yet the European Parliament warmly endorsed the proposal. She might consider whether it would be proper to temper her praise for the work of her colleague in that respect.
Ms. Quin: Has there not also been adverse reaction to the second draft because it goes wider than the first?
Mr. Maude: There have been many drafts. It has been a fact-moving negotiation. The proposal has been subject to constant amendment, broadly in the direction that we have sought, to narrow its scope so that it is both effective and enforceable.
The draft considered by the European Parliament was, by fairly common consent, thought to be hopeless. As I said, the European Parliament warmly endorsed it.
The hon. Lady marred her performance by mounting what she might claim to be an attack on the Government's performance in pursuing insider dealing. She badly misjudged it. She relied only on evidence of remarks by some commentators and she did her reputation no good. I have a very high regard for her abilities, but I feel bound to say that she did not inform herself properly.
Ms. Quin: There were a large number of articles. Can the Minister tell me that all those were wrong, that none of the cases mentioned involved insider dealing, that all prosecutions that should have been made have been made, and that no one has escaped the net of the Government's system? If so, I shall be delighted.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady has not referred to any case about which she can assert that insider dealing has occurred and not been pursued, and nor did any of the articles to which she referred. She relied on assertions that there was a certain amount of insider dealing that had not been subject to prosecution. It will not do to make such assertions without the slightest evidence to sustain them. The evidence relied on was the assertion that before some takeovers there were movements in share prices. I have shown conclusively that there is frequently a proper explanation for that—a company may properly be building a platform before announcing its bid. There is nothing improper in that. There is no evidence in anything to which the hon. Lady referred to show that a large amount of insider dealing is not being pursued. She should not make irresponsible assertions.

675
The directive, which I believe will be agreed before long, provides for a useful addition to our domestic law. It means that we can rely on sensible law being implemented and operated in other member states. It will be supplemented by the Council of Europe convention on insider dealing, which we hope to sign and ratify later this year. All in all, it is a good move forward in the fight against insider dealing. I ask the House to accept the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7310/87 and 8810/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 22nd May 1989 relating to insider trading; and supports the Government's view that a practical and workable Directive would demonstrate Member States' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  GATT NEGOTIATIONS
  That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 15th October 1987 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department on 27th October and 25th November 1987 relating to negotiations between the European Community and Japan under GATT Article XXIV.6, on 15th October 1987 relating to negotiations between the Community and Argentina under GATT Article XXIV.6 and on 21st March 1989 relating to negotiations between the Community and Canada under GATT Article XXIV.6; and endorses the Government's view that the agreements with these countries are satisfactory given the Community's obligations under GATT.—[Mr Garel-Jones.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

  HEALTH AND SAFETY
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5211/88, Part 1 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 20th March 1989, 10166/88 and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 2nd June 1989, relating to safety and health of workers at the workplace; supports the broad thrust of the common position adopted on these proposals by the Council of Ministers as a step towards the establishment of high standards of safety in workplaces throughout the Community; and endorses the Government's view that United Kingdom law generally achieves the objectives of the proposal.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Heath Comprehensive School
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to present a petition from my constituents in the Heath and Holmewood area of north-east Derbyshire.
  Derbyshire county council has proposed to the Department of Education and Science that the Heath school for 11 to 16-year-olds should be closed. Although the council has a good record as a local education authority, this part of its plan for the area is seriously flawed.
  I am pleased to present and support the petition, as I was pleased to support my constituents when a deputation met the Minister on Thursday. The petition reads:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of Heath and Holmewood, Derbyshire sheweth that proposals to close Heath Comprehensive school would deprive parents of the right to choose that their children be educated in a modern, well-maintained, purpose-built school of proven worth;
  Cause present and future pupils increased travel problems, particularly in winter; increase stress and provide no educational benefit;
  Deprive the community of an important local asset of which it is justifiably proud;
  Cause increased social deprivation in an already deprived area;
  Divide a community linked by the school.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the closure of Heath Comprehensive school.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the closure of Heath Comprehensive school.
  That is signed by Mrs. Sally Holland of, 5 Gorse bank, Heath, Chesterfield and another 1,018 constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.

Greyhound Racing
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]
11.46 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this evening the subject of greyhound racing. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office for coming to the House to reply to the debate. I am glad, too, to see a number of hon. Members present who I know have an interest in the matter, including my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
I have raised the subject because I am a great enthusiast of greyhound racing. I have attended several meetings recently and they have been most enjoyable occasions. It may be that my hon. Friend has not been to a greyhound meeting in the recent past and I urge and thoroughly recommend him to take the opportunity to attend one.
Next week's derby, worth £30,000 to the winner, will he watched by more than 10,000 racegoers and will be followed avidly by millions of people via the media. No, it did not take place at Epsom a week ago—this is the classic of the classics, the Greyhound Derby. It is the culmination of six rounds of competition among 200 runners, and it will be run at Plough lane, Wimbledon.
This is the start of the greyhound festival week and it is an appropriate time to look at the sport of greyhound racing and how it has fared over the past 10 years.
Greyhound racing is popular, but under-financed. Attendances are going up on the more popular courses, but smaller ones are still under threat from property developers. Ten years ago there were 48 courses, but today there are only 35, which race under the National Greyhound Racing Club rules.
Crowd violence and drunkenness have never been a problem and most tracks in recent years have become much more upmarket and can offer a sophisticated dinner and evening out. Nonetheless, the underlying tendency is that the sport is getting poorer while the off-course bookmakers, through their betting office chains, are getting richer. Standards countrywide for racegoers and the greyhounds are not improving as fast as they should.
The heart of the problem is that greyhound racing, as with horseracing, is unable to extract a fair price from the off-course betting shops for the use of its product. The situation is exacerbated for dog racing, which gets no levy and only totally insignificant sums from the off-course betting industry, despite the fact that the sport now provides nearly one third of off-course betting revenue for the bookmakers. As horseracing receives an off-course betting levy administered by the Horserace Betting Levy Board, so should greyhound racing receive an off-course betting levy.
The bookmakers argue that most greyhound race meetings take place in the evenings, when betting offices are closed. However, that does not prevent punters from placing their bets on evening dogs during the daytime when the shops are open—and thousands do.
The bookmakers say that almost all their greyhound business is conducted on the afternoon meetings. That may be true, but those afternoon meetings—although the bookmakers own some of the tracks—are all part of NGRC greyhound racing and subject to NGRC rules, stewardship, licensing and discipline. All the greyhounds,
678
their owners and trainers are NGRC-registered. The meetings could not be run in the absence of a supervisory authority for greyhound racing whose integrity is assured by independent stewards to the satisfaction of the licensing authority and the Home Office, which has overall responsibility for the conduct of betting sports.
All off-course greyhound betting takes place on the results of racing at NGRC-licensed tracks. It amounts to more than a £1 billion turnover for the off-course bookmakers. In betting offices the same 10 per cent. deduction is made for a bet on a greyhound as for a bet on a horse. That permits the bookmaker to recover betting duty and levy. Since greyhound racing has no levy, however, that part of the money taken from greyhound punters, supposedly to cover the levy, is not passed on to greyhound racing. The bookmakers keep it and the punters do not know that. In effect, the bookmakers make a levy charge on greyhound punters and keep the proceeds to boost their own profits. Because the bookmakers are able to exploit greyhound punters in that way, it makes sense for them to maximise their greyhound racing betting, which is what they have been doing. Between the years 1977 and 1988 the amount of off-course betting turnover on greyhounds increased from 18 to 27 per cent. of the total. Betting on horses went down from 82 to 72 per cent.
As long as bookmakers are able to charge greyhound punters for a levy that does not exist, the composition of off-course betting will continue to change to the detriment of horseracing and therefore to the detriment of the horseracing levy.
The statutory 8 per cent. betting duty applies just as much to off-course greyhound betting as to off-course horse betting, so the Government have an equal interest in both. But the greyhound betting public is not being protected in the same way as the horserace betting public because greyhound racing has no levy income to help fund veterinary work, or to improve security and dope testing, particularly in the increasing use of steroids. It has no equivalent to the equine research centre or the Racecourse Security Services companies, both of which are funded by virtue of the horserace betting levy. Why should the punter who bets on a dog and pays 8 per cent. to the Government not be protected in the same way as the punter who bets on a horse and pays 8 per cent?
A levy for greyhound racing would provide the necessary financing to improve protection for the public. Annual betting turnover on greyhounds now exceeds £1£3 billion and a levy for the sport similar to the horseracing levy would yield between £10 million and £11 million. It would also remove the bookmakers' incentive to exploit betting on greyhounds at the expense of the horseracing levy.
Many people are now beginning to question the fairness of the present situation, which leaves greyhound racing out in the cold. In the absence of a levy, much thought has been given to some alternative funding mechanism to provide a proper balance between the supplier and the retailer of the betting product. The ideal alternative would have been the control by the greyhound racing and horseracing authorities of the satellite communications company which distributes betting information and live television picture commentaries from the greyhound stadium to the off-course betting shops. But here again there is a marked imbalance. Control of Satellite Information Services Ltd., known as SIS, rests with the

679
bookmakers, who appear to have no intention of relinquishing that control, or of allowing greyhound interests to have any stake in the company.
In the first placement of SIS shares the big four bookmakers took 45 per cent. of the 60 per cent. which were allocated, the Horserace Tote took 5 per cent. and the Racecourse Association 10 per cent. This put the bookmaker in the driving seat during the vital period when the company was being established. The result has been, as we see in the latest announcement relating to the imminent placing of the remaining 40 per cent. of SIS shares, that the big bookmakers are calling the shots once again. They are saying that none of the unplaced shares will be allowed to go to horseracing or greyhound racing, at least until 1992, when there is the vague promise that the company will go public. That means that if bookmakers have their way, racing will have to join the queue for shares with everybody else.
Since Sears Securities has sold its William Hill betting shops chain to Mecca Bookmakers, a new allocation of shares has been announced. Ladbrokes, the combination of William Hill and Mecca, and Corals, the big three, are to share between them 45 per cent. of SIS, and the Tote's holding will be increased by 1 per cent. to 6 per cent., giving bookmaking interests 51 per cent. Sears Securities is to keep just under 13 per cent., leaving only 26 per cent. for the outside world. The Racecourse Association, representing horseracing, remains with its handout of 10 per cent.
Clearly the bookmakers have no intention of letting other partners into SIS and horseracing may find its negotiating hand rather short of trumps in years to come. Greyhound racing, meanwhile, holds no cards at all despite the fact that two greyhound race meetings are beamed live every afternoon into off-course betting offices.
The merger of Mecca Bookmakers, owned by Grand Metropolitian plc, and the William Hill Organisation is presently the subject of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. The merger serves only to aggravate the situation and give the big three bookmakers and their associates a bigger stake in the control of the only means of distributing betting information to betting shops.
The merger will also further restrict competition in the betting market and strengthen the influence of the major bookmaking companies over the Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services company which was established to obtain from NGRC licensed greyhound racecourses a racing service for off-course outlets during betting office opening hours. That might have developed into the ideal mechanism for paying to greyhound racing a proper price for its product. Unfortunately it has not, because the big bookmakers have also managed to usurp the sport's position there.
Two of the big three bookmakers, Coral and Ladbrokes, now own and operate four of the eight greyhound tracks which, in 1988–89, supplied the greyhound service to betting offices. A fifth track supplying the bookmaker service is Newcastle, which is owned by Ladbrokes and leased to a private company to operate. A sixth is Hackney, whose owners, Brent Walker Ltd., purchased 119 betting shops from William Hill at the time of the merger with Mecca. Bookmaking interests control six out of the eight tracks which supply greyhound racing to bookmakers.
680
When the law governing the control of betting at greyhound tracks was enacted it became an offence for the proprietor of any greyhound stadium to run a book or have any interest in bookmaking at that stadium. The public interest objective was to prevent organisers of races from offering betting odds against runners. The offence is now to be found in section 19 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which remains in force today. The law applies only to on-course betting. Thus, bookmakers who are also track proprietors can run a book in their betting shops on the racing taking place at their tracks. In other words, the law does not extend to the bookmaking companies which now organise off-course betting on greyhound racing, taking enormous numbers of bets on races that they and their employees arrange at the tracks which they own.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the law appears anomalous and should be brought up to date. I am suggesting that the spirit of section 19, if not the letter of the law, is being contravened because no safeguard exists for the off-course betting public such as that which exists for racegoers. The spirit of section 19 is being abused by all the major bookmakers. Would it not make sense, in the greyhound punters' interests, to take a leaf out of horseracing's book and prohibit bookmakers from using their own greyhound tracks to supply any form of greyhound racing and betting service to their own betting shops? If the law was changed in this way, and the sport of greyhound racing was given some form of enforceable copyright in its race results, market forces might prevail.
The Government-appointed members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board have made it clear that they believe that there should be a direct market mechanism between racing and the betting industry. In the absence of this mechanism, horseracing and greyhound racing should be treated equally.
I conclude that the existing horserace betting levy should be extended to include greyhound racing and, indeed, other sports on which off-course betting takes place, although I understand that, pro rata to the two racing sports, the other sports account for only about 1 per cent. of the total. I also conclude that there should be an inquiry into off-course betting's unhealthy influence over afternoon greyhound racing.
11.59 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I welcome the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has given us to respond to some of the anxieties of the greyhound racing industry and of those who enjoy the sport.
I sometimes think that issues of dispute between the racing and bookmaking industries may appear to the outside world a little arcane, but the way in which my hon. Friend addressed the House this evening was a model of clarity—much more so perhaps than some of the technical and often heated exchanges that we see in the racing press, which are hard for the average person to understand. Now the greyhound industry has taken its campaign to the pages of The Times, in which it is advertising. That newspaper may or may not be read more widely by hon. Members than, say, The Sporting Life.
Racing and betting are major industries in this country. They are the major passions of some people and they are among the diversions, if not passions, of a good many

681
more. Incidentally, I welcome the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) who takes an interest in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield ended by speaking of the need for an inquiry into the problems of greyhound racing and of betting on it. I shall begin by responding to that point, and then try to deal with as many of his detailed points as I can in the time available. Those that I do not answer now I shall try to deal with immediately in writing.
I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are carefully considering whether to hold an inquiry, and, if we hold one, whether it should include horse and greyhound racing. The need for an inquiry has been urged on us not least by the British Greyhound Racing Board, to which my hon. Friend referred. The House will know that last year, alas, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Bookmakers Committee failed to agree the terms of the horserace betting levy scheme for the current financial year—the 28th scheme. My right hon.Friend the Home Secretary was therefore called upon to determine the scheme.
In their submissions about the levy dispute, the three Government-appointed members of the levy board recommended the establishment of an inquiry into the long-term funding of racing. My hon. Friend referred to these three people, who served the board with such distinction. When my right hon. Friend announced his determination of the scheme on 22 March this year, he said that he understood the arguments for this recommendation—meaning the need for an inquiry. He also explained that the possible privatisation of the Horserace Totalisator Board is a factor relevant to reaching a conclusion on the need for and the scope of an independent and objective assessment of the issues within the recommendation.
My right hon. Friend added that he would announce his conclusion on an inquiry when we had received and considered the advice of Lloyds merchant bank on the feasibility of privatising the Tote. I am not in a position to announce our conclusions on that issue, but we are making progress in considering the complex issues involved and at the end of April we received Lloyd's advice on the Tote. In addition, we have assured the chairman of the Betting and Greyhound Racing Board that whether or not the funding of greyhound racing should be included in such an inquiry is most certainly among the considerations that we are taking into account. I am happy to repeat that. In our view, that is certainly the right approach. It does not seem sensible to pursue an inquiry into greyhound racing alone.
Mr. Richard Holt rose—
Mr. Patten: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is rising menacingly.
Mr. Holt: Has the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary taken into account the latest deliberations of the Horseracing Advisory Board, which has said that it is firmly against any form of inquiry?
Mr. Patten: We take careful account of the views of the horseracing world. I am aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. In recent months there have been some substantial shifts of opinion in the horseracing world about the desirability of an inquiry. Sometimes it is rather hard for the innocent Minister to keep up with the shifts in fashion about whether to have an inquiry.
Mr. Holt: I shall keep you posted.
Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's promise to keep me posted. No doubt the two Opposition Members who are present will do the same.
We have not reached a decision about an inquiry, but if one is held it will certainly encompass the relationship between greyhound racing and off-course bookmaking. That is a pledge if we go ahead with the inquiry. It would be extremely odd to consider bookmaking separate from its relationship to horse racing which accounts for the majority of off-course betting turnover.
Greyhound racing and horseracing are also alike in being subject to constraints and in enjoying privileges under legislation for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible. That is not to say that an inquiry is inevitable, because many of the issues that might be covered were explored in depth and with considerable authority by the Rothschild Royal Commission on gambling which reported 11 years ago, in 1978. It is not right to say that racing's interests have been neglected in the intervening years. For example, greyhound racing and horseracing were certainly helped by the abolition of the on-course betting duty in 1987. That help by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was widely welcomed.
Mr. Alan Meale: I accept much of what the Minister has said about how the industry has progressed. However, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, in the last 12 months a substantial amount of money—approximately £11 million—has gone astray. It has been taken from punters in off-course betting shops and continues to be deducted from punters who presume it is being paid in tax. To me, and probably to the majority of hon. Members, that is deception by off-course bookmakers of the punters. Will the Minister see if he can find a way to direct some of that money into the greyhound industry?
Mr. Patten: I shall do my best to respond later to the general tenor of the intervention by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not give way again because I wish to give as full a reply as possible before the debate finishes at 12.16.
I welcome the view of the hon. Member for Mansfield that he has seen some improvements. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield and for Langbaurgh, he will have noticed that the Government supported private Members' legislation in 1985, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act, which abolished the limit on the number of days on which betting, and hence racing, was allowed on each greyhound track. That was a substantial advance.
In addition, means exist for exploring concerns about bookmaking, ill founded or not. It is interesting to re-read the Royal Commission's report of 1978. One passage caught my eye and I shall read it to the House and thereby run the risk of bringing to his feet again my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh. It says:
"As Jane Austen might have said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that bookmakers make too much money…in fact, one might say that this opinion is held by everyone except bookmakers."
I do not hold those views myself.
Claims such as the manipulation of odds or betting information and alleged domination of others within or by

683
the bookmaking industry will, I suspect, continue just as long as bookmakers and punters do business. It shows something of the vitality of the racing industry, both horse and greyhound, that these feelings run so strongly. Such claims were considered exhaustively by the Director General of Fair Trading in 1986 and 1987. As a result, early last year, he decided not to refer the off-course bookmaking industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a potential complex monopoly.
Continuing and suitable action under current arrangements—for example, by the Home Office, the Office of Fair Trading or Customs and Excise—might, therefore, remain the best means to address the concerns and claims of the racing industry. The arguments for a comprehensive review are also strong. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to announce his conclusion on an inquiry before the House rises for the summer recess, or, if not, in the spill-over session.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a cluster of arguments for a levy on off-course bets for greyhound races, and asks two specific questions. He referred to Satellite Information Services. The greyhound industry has variously alleged that SIS is dominated by the big bookmakers, and argued either that it should be entitled to a holding in SIS, or that the placing of unissued shares in SIS should be deferred until there has been an inquiry into racing and betting. I understand the strength of feeling on this, but the Government are not answerable for SIS's conduct as a commercial company. I understand that, at present, the big bookmakers do not control the SIS board. Under the terms of the proposed sharing placing—I have gone into this with some care—the bookmakers' shareholding will reduce to less than 50 per cent. I also understand that the Racecourse Association, which also is independent of Government, is not sympathetic to the call for it to block the share placing unless or until there has been an inquiry. The current investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into the relationship between SIS and the
684
Racecourse Association is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I understand that the outcome of the investigation will be made public.
My hon. Friend then referred to section 19 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and suggested that the spirit of this section might be being abused by the ownership of some greyhound tracks by off-course bookmaking companies. That section prohibits the proprietor of any greyhound track from having an interest in bookmaking on that track. That is because the proprietor can also operate his own totalisator. If he could also conduct the on-course bookmaking, he would have a monopoly of on-course betting. This does not apply to the ownership of tracks by off-course bookmakers. This was looked at in some depth by the Rothschild commission. In the absence of any evidence of abuse, it did not support the case for prohibiting off-course bookmakers from owning tracks, and nor has the Office of Fair Trading made any recommendations about it. If anyone has any evidence of malpractice, such as the fixing of races, by virtue of ownership, it is extremely important that it is brought to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading or the Home Office, and we shall deal with it urgently.
There are six principal reasons why the Government believe that the law relating to the levy on off course betting on greyhound races should not be changed. First, it is argued that greyhound racing is entitled to a levy because horseracing has one. The arrangements for the horseracing levy are in question at present, following the dispute about the 28th levy scheme and the resulting call from members of the levy board for an inquiry. Looking back at the origins of the levy, the extent to which it was the product of several special factors that applied back in 1960 is striking. The viability of English racing—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  War Widows' Pensions
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the arrangements for disregarding war widows' pensions for housing benefit purposes are the same in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The housing benefit scheme for England, Scotland and Wales has a statutory disregard, currently set at £5 a week, of any war disablement or war widow's pension, and local authorities have discretion to enhance this disregard. The separate housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland has a statutory disregard of all such pensions.

  Electoral Register (Publicity)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister in the period of her premiership for which the latest figures are available, what percentage of Government expenditure on publicity has been spent to encourage people to register to vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Total expenditure over this period on Government publicity to encourage people to register to vote could he provided only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure on electoral registration advertising as a percentage of all Government advertising has been as follows:

  Year

  Percent

  Year

  Percent

  1979–80

  1n.a.

  1984–85

  0·57

  1980–81

  0·03

  1985–86

  0·59

  1981–82

  1n.a.

  1986–87

  0·30

  1982–83

  0·46

  1987–88

  0·29

  1983–84

  0·53

  1988–89

  0·31

  1 Not available.

ENERGY

  World Association of Nuclear Operators
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has placed any restrictions on any category of information that may be disclosed by nuclear power station operators to the World Association of Nuclear Operators established in May.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The World Association of Nuclear Operators is an association of nuclear power plant operators established to facilitate the exchange of information relating purely to nuclear power plant safety. The United Kingdom's members are free to exchange such information.

  Magnox Power Stations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list how many natural circulation tests have been carried out in the United Kingdom's Magnox nuclear power stations giving their locations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board, and British Nuclear Fuels plc. They are responsible for the operation of Magnox power stations in England and Wales. I will ask their respective chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the Central Electricity Generating Board has indicated to him how it intends to deal with the Wigner energy problem at Berkeley nuclear power station now that both reactors have been closed down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by the CEGB that Wigner energy does not present a problem in the decommissioning of Berkeley power station. The board will have to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate before undertaking each stage of decommissioning.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the Central Electricity Generating Board has any plans to carry out natural circulation tests at any of the operational Magnox power stations to further research into understanding the Wigner energy problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that natural circulation tests on nuclear plant have no connection with research into understanding the Wigner energy phenomenon. Any natural circulation tests would be subject to the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Disabled People (Electricity Supply)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will bring forward provisions in the Electricity Bill to enable electricity meters to be repositioned so that they are accessible for disabled people and to ensure that any charges for this service will be borne by the supplier;

  (2) what provision he is proposing for the Electricity Bill to enable electricity meters to be adapted for use by disabled people;

  (3) what provision he is proposing for the Electricity Bill to enable electricity meters to be installed in places that are accessible for disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The draft public electricity supply licence requires the licensee to produce a code of practice specifically aimed at the elderly and disabled. This code would cover special services available to these groups including such matters as the provision of special controls and adaptors for electrical appliances and meters and the placement of meters for convenient access. Where a meter is repositioned, the supplier would have the right to recover from the consumer any costs reasonably incurred. Community care grants are available from the social fund to those in receipt of income support to help with the cost of resiting meters to allow disabled people easier access.
  267
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provision he is proposing for the Electricity Bill to protect disabled people on life support systems from disconnection.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The electricity industry currently operates a voluntary code of practice which offers a number of protections against disconnection for consumers in difficulty, and makes special provision for the blind, severely sick and the disabled. The draft public electricity supply licence requires the licensee to produce a similar code to ensure that this approach continues after privatisation.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how much of the tonnage of rock likely to be required for a Severn tidal barrage will come from the limestone quarries of the Mendips and south Wales; whether studies are proceeding as to the likely social effects of such quarrying; and whether studies are proceeding as to the likely effects of such quarrying on road and rail links;

  (2) what are his latest estimates of the overall capital cost of a Severn tidal barrage at current prices;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications of electricity privatisation on (a) the programme studies into the effect of the proposed Severn tidal barrage, (b) the consideration in committee of these studies, (c) consultation with the public and (d) the consultation process with the European Community;

  (4) what substantive decisions have been made with regard to a Severn tidal barrage since November 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) when he expects the results of the further studies into the feasibility of a Severn tidal barrage to be available; and what form their publication will take;

  (6) whether longer-term studies into potential damage to sensitive wildfowl species including wildlife and waders arising from the building of the proposed Severn tidal barrage will be undertaken before a decision is reached on the building of the barrage;

  (7) which organisations will be represented on the committee to evaluate the information generated by the studies into a Severn tidal barrage; who will be the members; how significant environmental interests will be represented; and how regional industrial and service interests will be represented.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Studies of a Severn tidal energy barrage are nearing completion and I expect to receive a report in the next few months. A summary document of the work will be published in the energy paper series, and supporting reports by the Severn tidal power group will also be published. It is premature at this stage for me to comment on the results of the study or any further work which may be necessary. Whilst the current work includes a study of regional aspects of the barrage project, financial and related issues will be examined in the time-scale of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.
  268
  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department's contacts with journalists are based on requests for information from the media generally, and on regular contact with relevant specialist correspondents. My Department has contact also with a wider spectrum of newspapers, broadcasting organisations, and specialist journals, as appropriate.

  Eastern Electricity Board
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report the representations he has received regarding alleged anticompetitive practices by the Eastern electricity board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has received two such representations.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he intends to take regarding cross-subsidisation by the electricity boards of electricity supply through retail promotion.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The public electricity supply licence, which, subject to passage of the Electricity Bill, will be granted to the successors of the area boards, will prohibit cross subsidies between a licensee's separate businesses.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what investigations he has conducted into the retail promotion activities of electricity boards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigated and reported (Cmnd. 8812) on the direction and management by the London electricity board of its business of retailing domestic electrical goods, spare parts and ancillary goods. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission also considered retailing activities in its reports on some other area boards.

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made regarding proposals for the application off shore of regulations dealing with safety representatives and safety committees.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to the reply, 31 January 1989, c. 156]:I have today laid before each House the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989.

  Prior to the making of these regulations extensive consultations were carried out with organisations representing those persons likely to be affected by them including Government bodies, employers and trade unions. They have been made on the advice of the Health and Safety Commission under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. The effect of the regulations will be that every offshore worker, including contractors' employees, can make a positive contribution to promoting health and safety on offshore installations through elected safety representatives and safety committees.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  St. Benedict's School, Birkenhead
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was allotted for internal redecoration when approving the new St. Benedict's school in Birkenhead.

  Mr. Butcher
  The proposal to establish St. Benedict's school was approved by the Secretary of State on 2 April 1987. The total cost of the building project to extend and adapt the school premises is £1·8 million. A total of £1·4 million of this will be met by the governors, who will receive 85 per cent. grant from the Department on that expenditure. The local education authority intends to meet the remaining costs of approximately £400,000, including the cost of necessary internal redecoration, and this was taken into account in determining its prescribed capital expenditure allocation for 1989–90.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Official Report a full account of the objections to his proposals for student loans from banks.

  Mr. Jackson
  The White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" (Cm 520) contained, in annex G, a discussion of possible objections which had been expressed in evidence to the review of student support. The potential participation by the banks and other financial institutions in the administration of the scheme is under consideration; my right hon. Friend will announce his conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated cost to public funds over the next 10 years of his proposals for student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The estimated costs to public funds of the Government's proposals of top-up loans were set out in annex E of the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" (Cm 520). That estimate excluded administrative costs, which have yet to be determined.

  Special Needs
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to provide the extra specialist training and resources necessary to enable children with special needs to have access to the national curriculum.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on 15 May at column 2 and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on 6 June at column 16.

  Under-fives (Curriculum)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will appoint a nursery teacher to the group examining a curriculum for the under-fives, chaired by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold).

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Miss L. M. Grundy, the head teacher of Grandpont nursery school, Oxford, has been appointed to serve on the committee.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his proposals for the restoration of collective bargaining for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on Tuesday 6 June at column 14.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give the total numbers of staff employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in the year prior to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and for each subsequent year stating whether such staff are qualified or unqualified; and if he will give also(a) the number of cases reviewed and (b) the number of cases conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service in each such year.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service did not employ any staff prior to its formation on 1 April 1986. The total numbers of staff employed by the Crown Prosecution Service since April 1986 are:

  Total staff

  Total lawyers included

  1 April 1986

  1,360

  585

  1 April 1987

  3,374

  1,245

  1 April 1988

  3,864

  1,311

  1 April 1989

  4,322

  1,398

  The figures for the year of its formation reflect the fact that until 1 October 1986 the service was established only in the metropolitan counties excluding Greater London; elsewhere it operated in parallel with county prosecuting solicitors' departments. In addition to the lawyers in post on 1 April 1989, 133 unestablished lawyers were also employed, reducing the shortfall to 261 or 15 per cent.

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not collect statistics on the number of cases received or conducted, but does collect statistics on the number of defendants. The available figures, based on the number of defendants, are:

  271

  Received by Crown Prosecution Service

  Prosecuted in Magistrates Courts

  Prosecuted in Crown Courts

  1 October 1986–31 March 1987

  824,000

  611,000

  40,000

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  1,548,000

  1,335,000

  135,000

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  1,574,000

  1,328,000

  143,000

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  There are no formal guidelines. It depends on the matter under discussion.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to make any arrangements in order to enable those married couples who wish to share the benefits of the married couple's allowance equally between them from 1990 to do so.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No. The married couple's allowance which will be introduced under independent taxation in April 1990 will be given in the first instance to the husband. If he has insufficient income to use part or all of the allowance himself he will be able to transfer the surplus to his wife. Allowing married couples generally to share the married couple's allowance between them would add considerably to the complexity of independent taxation and would delay its introduction. Fewer than one in 300 couples would gain any financial advantage from this additional complexity.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any intention of levying value added tax on angling rod licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Fishing licences, which are issued by water authorities, are not liable to VAT. It is proposed that the National Rivers Authority will take over responsibility for the issue of these licences. Their correct VAT treatment, when this happens, is currently being discussed by Customs and Excise, the Department of the Environment and MAFF.

  Taxation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was accrued to the Exchequer from Wales, for the last year for which figures are available in(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) value added tax and (d) Customs and Excise duty.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information is available only in respect of income tax.

  In 1986–87, the income tax liabilities of residents of Wales were estimated to be about £1,500 million.
  272
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will obtain a copy in English for his departmental library of the speech by Commissioner Scrivener with regard to the harmonisation of value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Commissioner Scrivener's draft communication to the Council of 17 May. I am making arrangements for the final English version of the communication to be placed in the House Library as soon as it is available.

  Inflation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has in respect of the figures given by him to the House on 7 June of comparative inflation rates in the United Kingdom and in Italy on the precise components in each of the two calculations of housing costs.

  Mr. Lilley
  The inflation rate given for the United Kingdom was for the increase over the year to April in the all items RPI excluding mortgage interest payments. In the quoted Italian index of consumer prices owner-occupier housing costs are not included.

  ECOFIN Meeting (S'Agaro)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached at the recent ECOFIN meeting at S'Agaro.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the informal meeting of European Community Finance Ministers in S'Agaro, Spain on 19 to 21 May. Ministers examined the report on economic and monetary union in the European Community as requested by the European Council at its meeting on 27 and 28 June 1988. It was not the intention of the discussion to reach conclusions. Ministers also had a further discussion of the approximation of indirect taxation and of proposals on taxation of savings including mutual assistance, which will be discussed again at a future ECOFIN Council.

  Deeds of Covenant
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of accepting, as effective, non-charitable deeds of covenant executed prior to 15 March 1988, but not notified to the Inland Revenue before 30 June 1988, for which repayments have been made in respect of convenanted payments due prior to 15 March 1988;

  (2) in respect of how many deeds of covenant executed prior to 15 March 1988, but not notified to the Inland Revenue before 30 June 1988, a repayment has been made in respect of a covenant payment due before 15 March 1988;
  273
  (3) what information he has regarding the number of non-charitable deeds of covenant executed prior to March 15 1988 but not notified to the Inland Revenue before 30 June 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: I regret that this information is not available centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  India and Nepal
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any proposals to increase funding for population-related projects in India and Nepal.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We hope to discuss with the Government of India in the next few months what further help we can give to supplement the substantial family planning assistance being provided through our primary health and slum improvement projects. There will be a family planning component in the primary health care project we are preparing in eastern Nepal.

  Overseas Charities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any representations about his Department's support for charities overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I regularly meet representatives of many of the British non-governmental organisations. My Department has a productive relationship with them; and they play a distinct and valuable role in developing countries.

  I have increased substantially the money allocated for jointly funded development projects and for British volunteers overseas. In 1987–88 aid expenditure of all kinds through British non-governmental organisations exceeded £42 million.

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

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Zimbabwe is an important recipent of British aid. We have provided over £200 million in development assistance since independence. In recent months, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pledged a further £25 million in capital aid for agreed development projects.

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department dealt with how many aid projects(a) in the past year and (b) 10 years ago; what was the cost of the project in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information in respect of individual projects could be provided only at disproportionate cost,274
  but in 1978 gross expenditure on aid was £752 million and the number of officials employed in the headquarters of the Overseas Development Administration (as at 1 April) was 1,411. In 1988 the equivalent figures were £1,637 million and 1,196 officials.

  Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the combined percentage of gross national products given in overseas aid by members of the development committee of the OECD, except the United Kingdom, in 1988 or the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, the combined percentage of GNP devoted to official development assistance by development assistance committee members of the OECD, excluding the United Kingdom, was 0·35 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the development assistance committee of the OECD will next review the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The next review is scheduled for 1991.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was given in overseas aid by the United Kingdom Government in 1988.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was given in overseas aid by the United Kingdom Government in 1988.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Net official development assistance as a proportion of gross national product is estimated at 0·32 per cent. in 1988.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Net public expenditure on overseas, aid as a percentage of general Government expenditure was 1·01 per cent. in 1979 and is estimated at 0·85 per cent. in 1988.

  Lesotho
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to Lesotho.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Lesotho has long been an important recipient of British development assistance. Gross bilateral aid disbursements are estimated at almost £5 million in 1988.

  In October 1988 we offered a new grant of £10 million for expenditure on agreed development projects over the next few years.

  Aid Linkage
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the linkage of aid and other deals.
  275
  Mr. Chris Patten
  United Kingdom aid is provided in support of sustainable development and to alleviate poverty in developing countries. There is no question of linking aid and "deals".

  US Treasury Secretary
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the United States Treasury Secretary; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Both the United States Treasury Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend will be at the economic summit in Paris on 14 to 16 July. The summit will be an opportunity to discuss a number of important economic issues.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consequences have flowed from the meetings held by officials of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) with Megadon and Pa-ikan Amer-Indian chiefs from the rain forest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At my meeting on 28 April with Chief Raoni, Chief Payakan and representatives of the Rainforest Foundation, I invited the Rainforest Foundation to apply for joint funding by the Overseas Development Administration of a project to enforce demarcation of the protected area of the rain forest. When a proposal comes forward, I shall consider it sympathetically.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to halt the destruction of tropical rain forests; and what he is doing to promote the concept of sustainable yield in timber management in tropical rain forests.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration is implementing a forestry initiative aimed at increasing our aid for the sector in an effort to combat forest destruction. We are using the aid programme to promote the concept of sustainable yield in timber management, for example through a £3·7 million forestry inventory and management project in Ghana. We also promote the concept through participation in tropical forestry action plan sector reviews and in the International Tropical Timber Organisation. The recent sixth session of the ITTO council decided to request the executive director to propose ways of implementing policies to promote sustainable management of natural forests and woodlands.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Search Operation, Ards Peninsula
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what firearms and explosives were recovered at the home of a member of the Territorial Army in a search operation in the Ards peninsula, Co. Down, in February; what action has been taken against the person and any associates who are members of the Territoral Army; and whether effective security measures are now in 276
  place to guard against the activities of Loyalist paramilitary groups or their sympathisers in the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  On 24 February, six hand grenades, three handguns and a quantity of ammunition were recovered at the home of a member of the Territorial Army, following an RUC search operation in the Ards peninsula. The individual concerned has been charged with firearms and explosives offences and is now in custody. He has been discharged from the Territorial Army.

  No other present of former member of the Territorial Army has been charged by the police following his arrest. Questions about the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland (which has no security role in the Province) are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Short Bros.
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the heads of agreement for the sale of Short Brothers plc to Bombardier, what commitments there are in relation to the Shorts plants in Newtownards; and if he will make a statement on the future of Shorts in Newtownards.

  Mr. Viggers
  The heads of agreement are commercially confidential. However, in its public statements Bombardier has made it clear that assurances have been given that the manufacturing, and R and D facilities of Shorts, as well as the company headquarters, will remain in Northern Ireland. While the company has not made specific reference to any single manufacturing operation it has, nevertheless indicated that it plans to examine the potential for expansion for all areas of the business.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many (a) handguns, (b) shotguns, (c) semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles, (d) machine guns, (e) ammunition and (f) explosives by weight have been recovered from the possession of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland in each year since 1976 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Such information as is readily available is contained in the following tables. The tables relate to the number of munitions found by the security forces during the period 1976 to 30 April 1989:

  Firearms found

  Year

  Pistols/Revolvers

  Shotguns

  Rifles

  MG/SMGs

  Total

  1976

  340

  80

  275

  41

  736

  1977

  209

  63

  259

  32

  563

  1978

  126

  46

  188

  33

  393

  1979

  127

  38

  104

  31

  300

  1980

  89

  27

  82

  25

  203

  1981

  139

  44

  136

  38

  357

  1982

  111

  34

  118

  25

  288

  1983

  87

  17

  47

  15

  166

  1984

  70

  28

  69

  20

  187

  1985

  76

  44

  47

  6

  173

  1986

  61

  45

  57

  11

  174

  1987

  78

  58

  53

  17

  206

  1988

  153

  62

  215

  59

  489

  19891

  38

  11

  42

  27

  118

  277

  1 To 30 April

  Note: MG/SMGs refers to machine guns/sub-machine guns.

  Year

  Rounds of ammunition found

  Explosives found(tons)

  1976

  70,306

  9·7

  1977

  52,091

  1·7

  1978

  43,512

  0·9

  1979

  46,280

  0·9

  1980

  28,078

  0·8

  1981

  47,127

  3·4

  1982

  41,452

  2·3

  1983

  32,451

  1·7

  1984

  27,211

  3·8

  1985

  13,748

  3·3

  1986

  29,061

  2·4

  1987

  19,796

  5·8

  1988

  105,052

  4·7

  19891

  17,534

  0·2

  1 To 30 April.

HEALTH

  Prescription Payments
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost of the available scale margin with respect to prescription payments in the last year of its existence;

  (2) how much money has been saved by the abolition of the available scale margin;

  (3) on how many occasions were available scale margin payments made during the last year of that payment's existence.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the hon. Member's questions relate to the tolerance margin which was included in the assessment of claimants' requirements under the scheme for claiming exemption from prescription charges on low income grounds which was in force prior to 11 April 1988. I regret that we have no information about the number of cases in which the existence of this margin affected a claimant's entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; nor is it possible to distinguish between the effects of the abolition of the tolerance margin and those of the other changes which took place at the same time.

  NHS Reform
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he proposes to ensure that self-governing hospitals offer a full range of services to their local community.

  Mr. Mellor
  District health authorities will continue to be responsible for ensuring that a comprehensive range of health care services is available to their residents through contracts placed with self-governing or directly managed NHS hospitals or the private sector.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he expects to respond to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee report on midwives' regrading; and if he will make a statement.
  278
  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 10 May 1989, at columns 450–51.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  This depends upon the matter under discussion.

  Nurses (Regrading)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library all instructions he and his officials have issued to regional and district health authorities in connection with the nurses' regrading scheme.

  Mr. Mellor
  Copies of the guidance issued are in the Library.

  Medical Education and Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the specific studies made by his Department regarding the financial and regional requirements for(a) staff time and attention, (b) hospital beds, (c) laboratory monitoring, (d) extra out-patient attention, (e) resources for epidemiological controls and care and (f) other medical services demanded by medical research in the United Kingdom, during the next 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has not undertaken any such specific studies.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the specific funds to be allocated for medical(a) education and (b) research for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibilities for the funding of medical education and research are vested in a number of bodies. We intend to ensure, through an appropriate funding mechanism, that hospitals which incur extra costs in future through their support of teaching and research, are not put at a disadvantage by comparison with others.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the proposals contained in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", will avoid the fragmentation of medical research and making the dissemination of the application of research results throughout the country more difficult.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have stated in their White Paper "Working for Patients" that they are firmly committed to maintaining the quality of research in the NHS. A range of measures will be taken to fulfil this pledge. These include the necessary legislative framework, provision for the service costs of research, and accommodation in the merit award system for consultants engaged in research.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he responded to the comments and observations made by the Medical Research Council to his White Paper "Working for Patients".
  279
  Mr. Freeman
  A response to the comments and observations of the Medical Research Council will be made in due course. Officials have discussed these matters with the Medical Research Council and these contacts will be maintained.

  Rejected Imported Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 26 May,Official Report, column 788, he will list the whereabouts of records of rejected imported food consignments.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is held by the port health authority of the port of importation.

  Chlorinated Water
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Heath what information his Department has on the effects of drinking chlorinated water.

  Mr. Freeman
  Nearly all public water supplies in England and Wales are treated with chlorine by the water undertakers in order to kill pathogenic micro-organisms. This leads to the production of chlorination by-products, at a level of a few parts per billion. Some of the chemicals formed cause cancer when administered in large doses for long periods to laboratory animals.

  The Government sought advice from the Department of Health's independent expert advisory committee on medical aspects of the contamination of air, soil and water. It said:
  "We have found no sound reason to conclude that the consumption of the by-products of chlorination, in drinking water which has been treated and chlorinated according to current practices, increases the risk of cancer in humans.
  The effective disinfection of water supplies is clearly of great importance in maintaining public health. In our opinion, modification of chlorination processes which have proved effective over many years, or the replacement of chlorination by other disinfectants, is not required by the available data on cancer epidemiology, animal carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity in relation to chlorination by-products in drinking water."

  This advice was conveyed to water authorities and water companies in England and Wales in the Department of the Environment/Welsh Office letter WP 12/1986.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to ensure that opted-out hospitals under his proposals for reform of the National Health Service will finance the necessary care of brain dead organ donors prior to transplant operations including heart-lung transplants for cystic fibrosis patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are awaiting the report of a study, commissioned by the Department of the costs incurred by hospitals which provide donor organs for transplant. We shall be examining future financial arrangements in the light of the results of this study.

  NHS (Pay and Prices)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year since 1979(a) the assumed movement of National Health Service pay and prices for
  280
  the following financial year at the time of the publication of the public expenditure White Paper and (b) the actual movement of National Health Service pay and prices over that year; and if he will give the scale of cash uplift and efficiency savings required to cover (i) the assumed inflation rate and (ii) the actual inflation rate in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available. NHS expenditure plans are made in cash and the Department does not produce projections of a price index for its aggregate programme. Generally, when measuring the effects of inflation on NHS expenditure, the GDP deflator is used as this gives the best picture of the costs of the resources spent on the NHS to the economy as a whole. By this measure gross expenditure on the NHS has increased by more than 40 per cent. over and above retail price inflation since 1978–79, or an average of over 3 per cent. a year. In addition to these extra funds, the Health Service has also benefited from the effects of health authorities' cost improvement programmes.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made by(a) his Department and (b) the Central Office of Information of the National Health Service review launch in early 1989;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of the campaign to promote the National Health Service review relaunched on 7 June; and how those cost are made up;

  (3) which agency or agencies were involved in the relaunch of the National Health Service review publicity campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The NHS review launch in early 1989 achieved its objectives of informing the public in general and NHS staff in particular about the Government's proposals. The Central Office of Information was not involved in this communications exercise.

  There has been no relaunch of the White Paper proposals.

  The second stage of the communication effort will provide information for staff at hospitals and units which have expressed interest in self-governing status and for the general public in the areas concerned.

  NML Presentations Ltd has been contracted to provide organisation, production, design and print services in connection with this communication programme.

  The cost of this stage of the programme is of the order of £750,000.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase the allocation for research into the cause of cot deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The main Government agency for the promotion of medical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. The MRC has funded a number of projects related to sudden infant deaths and respiratory distress in the newborn, details of which were given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 20 February, at columns 524–25. As a matter of urgency, we are discussing with the MRC what further avenues of research might next be most fruitfully pursued.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of air ambulances; and what proposals he has to improve the service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Emergency flights by the RAF and the air-sea rescue service are undertaken free of charge. The current costs to the NHS of non-emergency flights are £1,015 per flying hour. Several ambulance authorities within the United Kingdom now use dedicated air ambulance helicopters. No information on costs is held centrally, but running costs of the Cornwall service are reported to be around £250,000 per annum.

  It is for health authorities to decide whether local circumstances justify the cost of operating a helicopter ambulance.

  Blood Transfusions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the shortages of blood for blood transfusion in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was a temporary reduction in blood supplies following the bank holidays. There has been an excellent response from donors, and stock levels are returning to normal.

  Childline
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is provided by his Department to Childline; what training he requires its counsellors to have; and to what extent its action and inquiries are co-ordinated by his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: We made a grant of £50,000 towards the launching of Childline in October 1986 and £100,000 for the financial year 1988–89, and we are considering a further application for grant aid. Childline has developed its own training programme, which all its counsellors are required to successfully complete. The Department maintains a close link with Childline and is represented on its council.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Man Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage fall in the number of people coming forward for routine eye tests since April 1989 in England.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: We do not yet have information on the number of people receiving sight tests since April 1989. We expect to commission a survey in the autumn into the number of private sight tests being carried out although the precise details for this survey have yet to be worked out.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disablement Allowance (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Leicestershire receive severe disablement allowance.
  282
  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of people receiving severe disablement allowance from the Department's local social security offices in Leicestershire as at 30 April 1989 are as follows:

  Number

  Leicester (Burleys Way)

  476

  Leicester (Lower Hill Street)

  1,054

  Leicester (Norton Street)

  499

  Leicester (Yeoman Street)

  838

  Loughborough

  654

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the allowances paid to disabled people will be increased to take into account the extra expense of the community charge, also known as the poll tax.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All community chargepayers on low income, including those who are disabled, will be helped through the community charge rebate scheme which provides rebates of up to 80 per cent. of liability. The special element built into income-related benefit levels will provide help with the 20 per cent. of liability that all chargepayers will have to make from their own resources.

  Benefits
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the grounds of refusal of unemployment-related benefits in a manner consistent with the reports of the chief adjudication officer, and if he will give the number of claims disallowed on each ground in 1988.

  Mr Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is in the table.

  Disallowances of Unemployment-Related Benefits made by Department of Employment Adjudication Officers in 1988

  Numbers

  Normal idle day/Full extent normal

  1,678

  Leaving employment voluntarily

  261,029

  Misconduct

  80,412

  Payment in liew of notice or remuneration

  140,362

  Delayed claim

  136,496

  Whether unemployed

  45,154

  Dependency

  1,898

  Availability

  73,842

  Engaged in employment

  21,530

  Restricted availability

  21,424

  Refusal of suitable employment

  5,373

  Premature termination of training

  3,881

  Recognised or customary holiday

  6,754

  Seasonal worker

  5,125

  Other

  64,933

  Total disallowances

  869,891

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of providing the information on budgeting loans and community care grants sought by the hon. Member for Coventry. South-East,Official Report, 25 May, column 683; what was the the cost of providing similar information in his

  283
  answers of 24 May, Official Report, columns 547–52; on what criteria he decided in each case as to whether the cost was disproportionate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of providing the information on budgeting loans and community care grants sought by the hon. Member was approximately £285. Similarly the cost of providing equivalent information in the replies on 24 May was £180 and £112 respectively. There is a long-standing convention that Ministers may decline to answer a question when the cost of preparing the reply is likely to be in excess of £250.

  Family Credit (Advertising Campaign)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library any assessment of the family credit advertising campaign of April to June 1988 made(a) by his Department or its predecessor or (b) the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information on the April to June 1988 family credit advertising campaign was provided to those planning and mounting the current family credit publicity campaign.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The advertising agency concerned did not request any specific information relating to the earlier campaign and none was provided.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which agency or agencies were involved in the family credit advertising campaign mounted in April to June 1988; and what fee or fees they received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  One agency, BSB Dorland, was involved in the campaign. It did not receive a specific fee for the campaign. The sums involved are commercial in confidence.

  Lodgings
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in local authority supported lodgings in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales lost the £17·50 addition in April when the payment of their benefit was divided between income support and housing benefit; what representations he has received about the removal of this addition; if he intends to review it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  People in supported lodgings should not have seen any reduction in their total benefit income when the new arrangements were introduced in April. Many will have received more benefit overall, because they gained access for the first time to normal income support allowances and premiums which recognise the special needs of the elderly and the disabled. The remainder were entitled to transitional protection which will continue for as long as they remain in supported lodgings.

  We have received no recent representations on this issue and have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Income Support
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of supplementary 284
  benefit income support expressed as a proportion of the appropriate level of average net male earnings, in each year since 1974, for each of the following categories of claimants (a) a married couple, plus one child, aged under five years, (b) a married couple, plus two children, aged under five years, and (c) a married couple, plus three children, two aged under five years, and one aged five to 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information is at tables 6.4b and 6.5b of the 1988 edition of the "Abstract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions", a copy of which is in the Library. These tables do not include information relating to income support in 1988 for families in category (iii), but the figure requested is 51·5 per cent.

  The income support and supplementary benefit figures are not strictly comparable as the latter included an allowance for rent.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Capital Sentences (Jamaica)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration has been given by the Privy Council to capital sentences passed by Jamaican courts in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The following numbers of appeals and petitions for special leave in capital cases from Jamaica have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since 1980.

  Petitions

  Appeals

  1980

  1

  0

  1981

  3

  2

  1982

  3

  1

  1983

  4

  0

  1984

  6

  0

  1985

  4

  1

  1986

  8

  0

  1987

  15

  1

  1988

  16

  0

  1989 (to date)

  6

  2

  It would not be appropriate for me to make any statement regarding the exercise of this judicial function.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Stationery
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much House of Commons stationery has been used in each of the last five years; and what was the total cost of such stationery in each of the years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The quantity of House of Commons die-stamped stationery which has been ordered by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in each of the last five years, together with the total value, is as follows:

  Financial year

  Envelopes

  Letterheads

  Value £

  1984–85

  4,118,000

  5,929,000

  n/a

  1985–86

  3,112,000

  4,477,000

  311,880

  1986–87

  7,662,000

  5,718,000

  422,809

  285

  Financial year

  Envelopes

  Letterheads

  Value £

  1987–88

  4,457,000

  5,353,000

  351,237

  1988–89

  3,259,000

  4,808,000

  367,815

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what organisations have been granted ET training agent contracts; what were the planned volumes of trainees between September 1988 and March 1989; what are the planned volumes between April 1989 and

  Table 1

  Employment service referrals to training agents: September 1988 to March 1989

  Employment service referrals to training agents

  Employment service area office

  September 1988

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  London and South East Region

  London North West

  1,241

  947

  899

  783

  959

  986

  887

  London East

  615

  820

  921

  789

  897

  826

  908

  Inner London Central

  824

  1,217

  1,030

  889

  1,305

  1,431

  1,641

  Essex

  1,469

  1,530

  1,178

  832

  1,352

  1,331

  1,539

  London North

  931

  1,111

  972

  808

  1,085

  1,085

  986

  Inner London East

  669

  923

  1,013

  841

  1,033

  1,024

  1,160

  Inner London West

  1,299

  1,080

  1,243

  983

  1,350

  1,513

  1,441

  London South East

  591

  725

  534

  329

  503

  629

  573

  London South

  848

  715

  820

  713

  859

  841

  852

  North and East Kent

  1,604

  1,187

  1,104

  905

  1,247

  1,146

  1,169

  London South West

  813

  631

  568

  394

  519

  582

  656

  Inner London West

  1,049

  817

  727

  672

  1,022

  1,123

  827

  London West

  924

  592

  689

  1,193

  755

  757

  667

  East Sussex and West Kent

  940

  974

  876

  698

  875

  784

  832

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,925

  1,686

  1,583

  1,184

  1.842

  1,566

  1,579

  West Sussex and Surrey

  1,179

  822

  736

  582

  756

  773

  735

  Hertfordshire

  936

  684

  691

  464

  632

  688

  802

  Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  1,392

  731

  602

  508

  574

  501

  647

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  1,476

  722

  630

  536

  670

  629

  762

  South West Region

  Avon

  817

  897

  883

  718

  1,165

  976

  948

  Devon

  808

  632

  633

  532

  715

  614

  710

  Cornwall/Plymouth

  1,425

  1,266

  1,332

  1,028

  1,366

  1,355

  1,513

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  957

  727

  611

  482

  735

  932

  1,014

  Somerset/Dorset

  1,124

  858

  414

  715

  970

  970

  983

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihulll

  2,165

  2,272

  2,857

  2,697

  3,585

  3,682

  3,592

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1,294

  1,046

  1,108

  1,042

  1,204

  1,205

  1,346

  Hereford/Worcester

  646

  561

  556

  542

  690

  634

  757

  Wolverhampton/Walsall

  1,622

  1,465

  1,264

  1,121

  1,392

  1,346

  1,551

  Dudley and Sandwell

  1,332

  1,039

  1,214

  874

  1,018

  1,184

  1,100

  Shropshire

  1,035

  970

  757

  555

  824

  725

  771

  Staffordshire

  2,253

  1,299

  1,355

  1,328

  1,799

  1,604

  1,621

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Northamptonshire/Cambridgeshire

  950

  945

  928

  705

  983

  1,010

  811

  Derbyshire

  1,752

  1,306

  1,258

  705

  1,304

  1,208

  1,277

  Leicestershire

  834

  879

  1,011

  739

  769

  899

  815

  Lincolnshire

  875

  807

  426

  524

  695

  595

  621

  Suffolk

  696

  467

  499

  370

  504

  462

  499

  Nottingham

  1,571

  1,485

  1,403

  1,042

  1,574

  1,606

  1,754

  Norfolk

  855

  798

  753

  557

  825

  830

  821

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  North Yorkshire

  640

  621

  590

  541

  676

  581

  631

  Wakefield

  2,006

  1,542

  1,599

  1,451

  2,094

  1,927

  2,026

  Bradford

  1,365

  1,163

  1,216

  999

  1,226

  1,247

  1,301

  North Humberside

  1,183

  1,266

  1,196

  907

  1,282

  1,063

  1,305

  South Humberside

  1.689

  1,777

  1,563

  1,355

  1,982

  1,704

  2,013

  Leeds

  1,214

  911

  915

  950

  1,174

  1,076

  1,392

  Sheffield

  2,023

  1,800

  1,861

  1,349

  1,680

  1,324

  1,312

  286
  August 1989; how many trainees have been referred to ET training agents; and how many action plans had been agreed at the end of each month since September 1988, for each Training Agency area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The names and addresses of training agents are in the employment training directory of training agents and training managers, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. Information on the profiles of training agent volumes is for internal management information purposes only. The numbers of employment service referrals to training agents are only available for the 77 employment service areas and are given in table 1. The number of action plans agreed at training agents are given for the 57 Training Agency areas in table 2.
  287

  Employment service referrals to training agents

  Employment service area office

  September 1988

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  North West region

  Cheshire

  1,664

  1,177

  1,079

  844

  1,080

  1,009

  1,063

  Lancashire North

  1,126

  1,122

  983

  764

  1,230

  1,018

  1,104

  Lancashire South

  1,042

  875

  815

  776

  1,122

  1,154

  1,145

  Manchester West

  709

  628

  526

  475

  733

  762

  1,067

  Manchester South

  1,007

  824

  832

  648

  831

  829

  985

  Manchester City

  1,242

  1,040

  936

  858

  1,197

  1,142

  1,485

  Manchester North West

  750

  847

  911

  664

  1,100

  1,038

  1,229

  Manchester North West

  1,068

  873

  928

  765

  1,030

  929

  1,092

  Cumbria

  836

  554

  496

  418

  755

  566

  609

  Merseyside North

  888

  891

  1,068

  847

  1,524

  1,346

  1,349

  Merseyside South

  1,297

  1,365

  1,386

  1,160

  1,551

  1,791

  2,201

  Liverpool Central/Wirral

  1,103

  1,206

  1,172

  931

  1,527

  1,311

  1,345

  Northern region

  Northumberland

  1,443

  898

  853

  672

  1,022

  1,074

  1,019

  South Tyne and Wear

  2,970

  1,643

  1,556

  1,366

  1,990

  2,042

  1,950

  Cleveland

  3,497

  2,391

  1,585

  1,379

  2,142

  1,657

  1,676

  Newcastle and Gateshead

  2,464

  1,364

  1,267

  1,094

  1,406

  1,295

  1,395

  County Durham

  2,079

  1,394

  1,173

  1,150

  1,689

  1,721

  1,722

  Wales

  Gwent

  597

  720

  848

  758

  1,114

  1,182

  1,154

  Gwynedd

  547

  362

  390

  331

  393

  305

  358

  West Glamorgan/Dyfed

  1,043

  1,520

  1,607

  1,512

  1,654

  1,686

  1,711

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,186

  1,242

  1,136

  837

  1,294

  1,281

  1,366

  South Glamorgan

  1,090

  875

  943

  944

  1,060

  1,169

  1,099

  Clwyd/Powys

  762

  664

  773

  710

  629

  607

  668

  Scotland

  Glasgow North

  1,300

  1,614

  1,763

  1,578

  2,055

  2,512

  2,862

  Glasgow South

  878

  1,103

  1,122

  911

  1,503

  1,513

  1,712

  Lanarkshire

  1,262

  1,098

  1,160

  1,150

  1,371

  1,421

  2,089

  Highlands and Islands

  960

  639

  714

  640

  703

  670

  633

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  1,500

  1,628

  1,542

  1,432

  1,734

  2,101

  2,254

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  1,128

  1,294

  1,320

  1,141

  1,388

  1,300

  1,287

  Lothian and Borders

  1,883

  1,773

  1,866

  1,213

  1,247

  1,513

  1,769

  Tayside and Grampian

  1,997

  1,602

  1,467

  1,259

  1,415

  1,513

  1,771

  Central and Fife

  1,351

  927

  1,172

  1,148

  1,651

  1,432

  1,449

  Table 2

  Action plans completed by ET training agents: September 1988 to March 1989

  Area office

  Agreed action plans

  September 1988

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  242

  798

  0

  922

  514

  450

  418

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  219

  294

  763

  411

  429

  520

  500

  Essex

  227

  550

  525

  1,051

  632

  748

  989

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  411

  487

  679

  409

  717

  670

  772

  Kent

  32

  610

  1,159

  488

  714

  652

  596

  Surrey

  102

  223

  174

  615

  190

  0

  196

  Sussex

  0

  682

  900

  470

  555

  652

  695

  London Region

  Inner London North

  505

  1,196

  1,545

  1,606

  1,651

  1,799

  2,090

  Inner London South

  510

  655

  616

  539

  645

  718

  736

  London East

  793

  735

  805

  670

  972

  1,117

  1,092

  London North

  732

  857

  935

  846

  858

  970

  996

  London South

  280

  320

  479

  340

  423

  542

  543

  London West

  591

  867

  811

  676

  900

  912

  952

  South West Region

  Avon

  238

  361

  411

  327

  453

  506

  489

  Devon and Cornwall

  665

  692

  1,244

  795

  1,294

  615

  1,192

  Dorset and Somerset

  418

  478

  386

  332

  342

  516

  471

  Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  357

  546

  560

  433

  390

  479

  536

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  935

  1,026

  1,201

  756

  1,553

  1,685

  1,382

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  378

  617

  576

  322

  638

  812

  748

  Dudley and Sandwell

  818

  769

  899

  1,021

  978

  1,059

  1,416

  Staffordshire

  541

  906

  434

  1,145

  1,128

  929

  1,192

  288 289

  Area office

  Agreed action plans

  September 1988

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  0

  710

  677

  954

  406

  613

  1,330

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  0

  1,055

  1,913

  308

  706

  821

  754

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  502

  484

  520

  331

  400

  426

  362

  Derbyshire

  704

  742

  743

  501

  582

  677

  743

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  499

  607

  604

  551

  718

  719

  736

  Lincolnshire

  192

  251

  267

  154

  296

  359

  313

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  586

  625

  652

  426

  753

  641

  961

  Nottinghamshire

  602

  909

  853

  669

  937

  923

  851

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  758

  944

  1,439

  911

  1,123

  1,186

  1,316

  Humberside

  858

  821

  791

  847

  949

  970

  938

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  621

  826

  752

  743

  777

  1,035

  1,002

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  1,078

  1,387

  1,382

  961

  1,459

  1,236

  1,043

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  861

  1,154

  1,296

  990

  1,501

  1,547

  1,265

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  809

  826

  901

  588

  773

  951

  699

  Cumbria

  267

  280

  406

  269

  315

  377

  373

  Lancashire

  937

  1,050

  955

  943

  1,090

  1,164

  1,279

  Central Manchester

  597

  685

  945

  936

  954

  984

  837

  Greater Manchester North

  395

  699

  711

  423

  821

  834

  894

  Greater Manchester East

  484

  904

  784

  488

  604

  875

  913

  Merseyside

  630

  1,386

  1,715

  1,504

  1,995

  2,315

  2,220

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  1,404

  2,633

  3,774

  4,573

  6,197

  7,961

  9,464

  County Durham

  1,027

  1,921

  2,818

  3,439

  4,453

  5,707

  6,767

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  602

  1,564

  2,668

  3,517

  5,861

  7,136

  13,114

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  1,356

  2,779

  4,170

  5,753

  6,829

  8,474

  10.080

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  524

  759

  922

  749

  909

  930

  949

  Gwent

  268

  348

  536

  282

  747

  779

  681

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  309

  458

  545

  546

  573

  679

  497

  Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan

  826

  935

  1,073

  856

  951

  1,302

  1,301

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  550

  706

  895

  832

  802

  1,003

  826

  Central and Fife

  429

  459

  710

  603

  594

  832

  573

  Glasgow City

  828

  958

  1,263

  1,160

  1,198

  1,463

  1,915

  Grampian and Tayside

  937

  817

  825

  726

  918

  1,018

  1,267

  Highlands and Islands

  158

  207

  301

  351

  397

  400

  308

  Lanarkshire

  301

  649

  710

  480

  639

  800

  803

  Lothian and Borders

  604

  766

  1,269

  757

  805

  824

  940

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  339

  397

  607

  576

  770

  1,000

  1,122

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

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce figures showing the duration of stay for participants on employment training on(a) a national and (b) a Merseyside basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information about duration of stay of employment training participants is not yet available.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there have been any cases where an unemployed claimant has had his benefits or credits stopped for refusing the offer of a place on employment training or for leaving the scheme before completion.

  Mr. Lee
  I am aware of only one case where an unemployed person had credits withheld because of a refusal to accept employment training. This decision was the result of an administrative error and I am satisfied that the case has now been rectified.

  Because employment training is voluntary it is not training approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Social Security Act. The right to
  290
  unemployment benefit and credits is not, therefore, affected by a refusal of employment training or leaving an employment training course early.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the target numbers of employment training places in September 1988 for the south Tyne and north Tyne areas, for the first year of operation of the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Profiles nationally and for area offices for the numbers of filled employment training places are for internal management purposes only.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider providing gardening assistance for elderly and infirm people under employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is a training programme designed to meet the needs of individual trainees and to help them get jobs when they finish their
  291
  training. Gardening training is available where there is a local demand from employers for people with gardening skills and a demand from trainees for this sort of training. In these circumstances, employment training trainees very often provide considerable gardening assistance to elderly and infirm people.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the 50 largest companies participating in the employment training programme, in each case stating the number of places they contracted for, the number of places so far filled, the latter as a percentage of the former and the level of expenditure so far on employment training advertising by each of these companies.

  Large companies with Training Managers contracts through ET large contractors unit

  Contracted places

  Places filled at 28 April 1989

  Places filled as a percentage of contracted places

  Amarc

  1,380

  879

  64

  Comet

  354

  35

  10

  Dixons

  229

  6

  3

  Habitat

  200

  0

  0

  Heron Service Stations

  81

  1

  1

  J. Jarvis and Sons Ltd.

  2,468

  971

  39

  Kalamazoo

  200

  89

  45

  John Laing Construction

  2,208

  1,045

  47

  Lloyds British Training Services

  2,595

  1,950

  75

  Remploy

  456

  0

  0

  Mothercare

  50

  0

  0

  Mowlem

  405

  103

  25

  Wimpey

  472

  189

  40

  It should be noted that several of these companies have only recently signed employment training, training managing contracts and therefore their occupancy figures have not yet built up.

  New Businesses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses have started up in each of the last six months for which figures are available, and in the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988; and what estimate he has of the average number of persons employed by each firm.

  Mr. Cope
  The table gives the date for 1985, 1986 and 1987, the latest year for which figures have been published. Early indications are that the figure for 1988 was greater. Monthly figures are not available. There are no estimates of the numbers employed by these new businesses.

  VAT registrations in the United Kingdom: 1985–87

  Registrations

  Thousand

  1985

  182

  1986

  191

  1987

  205

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for 12 months or more in the Denton and Reddish constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In April 1989 there were, 1,148 claimants who had been unemployed for 12 months or more in the Denton and Reddish parliamentary constituency.
  292
  Mr. Nicholls
  The table lists the information requested for those companies which have national employment training contracts through the large contractors unit. Other large companies have local contracts. However, for these organisations the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. There are other large companies who are participating in employment training as placement providers.

  Information concerning company expenditure on employment training advertising is the commercial information of the companies involved and thus is unavailable.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much long-term unemployment has fallen over the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available from the Library. In April 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for one year or more was 744,120 compared with 1,295,146 in April 1987, a fall of 551,026 or 42·6 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in the count from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations affecting those people aged under 18 years.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small businesses have been set up since May 1979; and what is his estimate of the number which have survived.

  Mr. Cope
  During the eight years from the end of 1979 to the end of 1987, there were an estimated 1,416,000 new registrations for VAT. The percentage of new businesses still registered for VAT after two years is estimated to be 74 per cent.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any estimates of the number of jobs created by the factoring business in respect of the role in financing small businesses throughout the United Kingdom; and what advice his Department is able to give to companies seeking guidance on the merits of factoring as distinct from bank loans.

  Mr. Cope
  We have no estimate of the number of jobs which may have been created or supported by the
  293
  factoring business. Our small firms service gives advice on all matters affecting small businesses, including where applicable the possibility of factoring. Basic advice on the possibilities of factoring as a method of improving cash flow is also given in the booklet "Prompt Payment Please". The appropriate method of raising finance including factoring, bank loans, or overdrafts, depends on the circumstances of the individual small business.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  This depends on the matter under discussion.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses were established by participants of the enterprise allowance scheme in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. Over 98,500 previously unemployed people set up a business through the enterprise allowance scheme in the year to 31 March 1989. Latest surveys indicate that around 80 per cent. of participants are sole traders, and nearly all others are in partnerships.

  Enterprise Allowance (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been in receipt of the enterprise allowance in Northamptonshire in each year since 1983–84.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is set out in the table. figures for 1988–89 include people joining the scheme in Cambridgeshire. All previous years show figures for Northamptonshire only. Numbers in each year to March 1986 are not available separately.

  Financial year

  Total number joined in that financial year

  1988–89

  1,227

  1987–88

  888

  1986–87

  446

  1985–86

  1,226

  1984–85

  1983–84

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to accept the Co-operative movement's proposals on the future of the Co-operative Development Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  A number of co-operative organisations have expressed varying views on the merits of the proposal to wind up the CDA. These representations are being given careful consideration. We will announce our conclusions and intentions in due course.

  Jobcentre Vacancies (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the following five vacancies advertised by his Department's jobcentre in Edinburgh are offering rates of pay which fall below wages council rates in their sector:(a) Ref: 2761 E, (b) Ref: 1965 H, (c) Ref: 1985 R, (d) Ref: 1507 Q, and (e) Ref: 2752 K; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Of the vacancies quoted, vacancy(d) Ref: 1507 Q is offering rates of pay which fall below wages council rates in the relevant sector. This error is regretted and my staff are now taking appropriate action to rectify it.

  The subject of wages council rates is quite complex and in a service dealing with, on average, over 2·7 million vacancies a year, there is always the possibility that a few vacancies with wages below the minimum will slip through.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The matter under discussion would determine which journalists are invited to press briefings.

  Spanish-owned Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the total catch by value for 1988 of the Spanish fishing vessels registered as British.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total catch by value of stocks subject to quota landed into Spain by such vessels during 1988 is estimated to be approximately £19 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Spanish-owned vessels are listed on the British fishing register, giving the number at each fishing port and the numbers who have ceased fishing or left the register since the Merchant Shipping Act was passed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since 1 April 1989, only vessels which are largely (at least 75 per cent.) beneficially owned, managed and controlled by British citizens resident in this country are eligible to be registered as British fishing vessels. As a result of the introduction of these new registration rules, some 150 vessels believed to be foreign have been refused registration as British fishing vessels.

  Beef
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the effect on the cost of beef in the shops of the underspending by £54 million in 1988 on beef support to producers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The cost of beef in the shops depends on a range of factors including supplies of beef
  295
  and other competing meats, and consumer demand and preferences. Consumers are already benefiting from the fact that the new beef support arrangements include a much reduced role for intervention thereby leaving greater supplies on the market for consumers. Moreover, the estimated change in expenditure on variable premium and special premium payments to producers between 1988/89 and 1989/90 would be only one of the elements affecting the beef market: in addition to those already noted payments to producers in the coming year will also reflect the 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow premium which was recently announced.

  Coast Protection (Arun)
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding delays in allocation for coast protection schemes by the Arun district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department has received two letters recently from Arun district council setting out its needs for capital allocation for coast protection schemes. Coast protection authorities have been notified that allocation is likely to be in short supply this year. Authorities have been asked for an indication of their needs for capital allocation and I expect the first distribution to take place shortly.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on measures undertaken to protect the coastline of each relevant European Economic Community country, whether by Government action or voluntary agencies.

  Mr. Ryder
  In England, works are carried out by drainage authorities—water authorities, local authorities and internal drainage boards—under the Land Drainage Act 1976 to protect against flooding from the sea and tidal rivers, and by maritime district councils under the Coast Protection Act 1949 to protect the coastline against erosion. Since 1980 more than £320 million has been spent with Government support on capital works to protect the coastline. Recent increases in such support mean that by 1991–92 Government's annual provision will be almost £46 million for flood and coastal defences, of which over two thirds will be spent to protect the coast. Coastal works also attract higher grant rates. As well as major capital works, support is also provided towards comprehensive studies, such as that on the Anglian coastline, with a view to identifying the best techniques of protection for the future.

  With regard to the other members of the European Economic Community, my Department has limited information on the measures undertaken to protect coastlines. This information is primarily of a technical nature and arises from liaison with the responsible authorities with the aim of ensuring that we are fully conversant with latest developments in protection.

  Fishery Products (EC Proposal)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to place in the Library a copy of the final version of the draft European Community Commission proposal on health conditions affecting the production and the placing in the 296
  market of fishery products; what consultations he has planned with the fish processing industry relating to the introduction of the changes proposed in the Commission's document; when the proposal is expected to become law; and what financial assistance will be available to the processors to comply with any new requirements.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The timing of this proposal to Council is uncertain, but I understand that the European Commission expects it to be issued during Sepember; thereafter it will be deposited in the House within the usual time scale. We have consulted widely on the early working drafts, and there will be full consultation, including with processors, once the proposal emerges. I cannot yet say when the new fish hygiene requirements will become law; this will need to be determined once the precise nature and scope of the new measures become clearer. Financial assistance through Community and national schemes under EC regulation 355/77 is currently available to processors to improve their facilities. While this regulation terminates for new applications in October 1990, the Commission has recently submitted proposals to the Council for a successor scheme.

  Intervention Food Store
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report a list of food stores under the control of the Intervention Board and indicate the type of food stored at each.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Stores used by the Intervention Board and the commodities stored are as follows. The grain stores at Chichester, Clifton, Dumfries, Gainsborough, Kidderminster, Louth, North Humberside and Whitchurch are Government owned; all the others are commercial stores in which the board has hired space.

  As the monthly notes deposited in the Library of the House indicate, there has been a very substantial reduction since 1985–86 in the volume of stocks of agricultural commodities held in intervention in this country.

  Intervention store locations and commodities held as at 31 May 1989

  Location

  Commodities

  Aberdeen

  Beef

  Antrim

  Beef

  Ballymena

  Beef

  Banbridge

  Butter

  Banbury

  Butter

  Belfast

  Beef, Butter

  Birmingham

  Feedwheat

  Blackburn

  Beef

  Bristol

  Butter

  Cardiff

  Beef, Butter

  Chichester

  Feedwheat

  Cleethorpes

  Beef

  Clifton, Yorks

  Barley

  Coleraine

  Beef, Butter

  Colnbrook

  Beef

  Coventry

  Barley

  Craigavon

  Beef, Butter

  Cullompton

  Beef, Butter

  Dumfries

  Barley

  Dungannon

  Beef

  Duns

  Barley

  Dysart

  Barley

  Ely

  Barley

  Exeter

  Beef, Butter

  Felixstowe

  Barley

  Fleetwood

  Butter

  Gainsborough

  Feedwheat

  297

  Location

  Commodities

  Glasgow

  Beef, Butter

  Glenrothes

  Barley, Beef, Butter

  Goole

  Butter

  Grantham

  Beef

  Hales worth

  Feedwheat

  Haresfield

  Barley

  Heywood

  Butter

  Hull

  Beef, Butter

  Huntingdon

  Feedwheat

  Kidderminster

  Feedwheat, Barley

  Leeds

  Beef

  Lisburn

  Beef

  Liverpool

  Beef, Butter

  Londonderry

  Beef

  Louth

  Feedwheat

  Maldon

  Feedwheat

  Manchester

  Beef

  Market Drayton

  Barley

  Market Rasen

  Barley

  Newmarket

  Feedwheat

  Newport

  Butter

  Newry

  Beef

  Newton Abbey

  Beef, Butter

  North Humberside

  Feedwheat, Barley

  Omagh

  Beef

  Ormiston

  Barley

  Penicuick

  Barley

  Peterborough

  Beef, Butter

  Plymouth

  Beef

  Portadown

  Beef, Butter

  Preston

  Butter

  Salisbury

  Barley

  Scunthorpc

  Beef, Butter

  Sherborne

  Butter

  Shrewsbury

  Beef

  Staughton

  Barley

  Strabane

  Beef, Butter

  Stracathro

  Barley

  Swansea

  Butter

  Tamworth

  Beef, Butter

  Telford

  Barley

  Tranent

  Barley

  Truro

  Beef, Butter

  Turriff

  Barley

  Whitchurch

  Barley

  Whittlesey

  Barley

  Wigan

  Beef

  Wimblington

  Feedwheat

  Wolverhampton

  Butter

  Nerds
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from the United States authorities relating to the contamination of the sweets known as Nerds.

  Mr. Ryder
  None. I have, however, been informed that there was a contamination threat in the United States last year involving these sweets.

  Brewery Sites
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many breweries have closed down and their sites used for other purposes in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is not available. Customs and Excise statistics indicate that there are currently 260 working breweries in the United Kingdom compared with 191 on 1 January 298
  1980. These figures reflect both closures and newly established breweries over this period. Further information may be obtained from the Brewers' Society's statistical handbook.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department is sponsoring research into the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle which consumed, as calves, infected animal feed as part of a herd of which other members have subsequently been confirmed as bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Yes, as part of the epidemiological study being carried out by the Ministry's central veterinary laboratory.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether heat treatment of 80°C for 30 minutes is proven to be sufficient to inactivate the infective agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Inactivation experiments are being considered by the Tyrrell committee.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the age of the youngest bovine confirmed as suffering bovine spongiform encepalophathy in 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Two years, eight months.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to record the movements of the offspring of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 22 May, at column 375. Record keeping is also required under the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the age of the youngest bovine to be confirmed as suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy to date.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Two years, four months.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department has taken to identify those suppliers of ruminant-based protein for cattle rations whose supplies were originally responsible for the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Epidemiological studies into the cause of BSE indicate that it was not due to a few specific sources or suppliers.

  Cattle (Ante-mortem Inspections)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 May,Official Report, column 340, if he has now collected the information about ante-mortem inspections of cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the first quarter of this year 16 suspected cases were reported from markets and 26 from slaughterhouses. Of these eight and 16 respectively were confirmed.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the cut in funding for the royal botanic gardens at Kew.

  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the arrangements whereby his Department funds the royal botanic gardens at Kew; and what are the funding levels from his Department for the last three years and for the next two years.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department provides funds for the royal botanic gardens, Kew by means of an annual grant in aid. This grant in each of the last three years amounted to:

  £

  11987–88

  11,387,000

  11988–89

  210,987,000

  11989–90

  310.598,000

  1 The downward trend in funding over this period reflects the completion of a major capital works programme.

  2 Provisional outturn.

  3 Estimated outturn.

  Present plans for provision of grant in aid over the next two years are for expenditure of £11 million in 1990–91 and £11·2 million in 1991–92, but these will need to be considered, together with other priorities, in the course of the public expenditure surveys.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his projections of staffing levels at the royal botanic gardens, Kew.

  Mr. Ryder
  Manpower planning at the royal botanic gardens, Kew is a matter for the board of trustees.

  Dr. Hugh Fraser
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what capacity and on what subjects his Department is advised by Dr. Hugh Fraser.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department works in close collaboration with a number of research establishments. This includes, in relation to research into scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the MRC/AFRC's neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh.

  "Mammal and Bird Pests 1983"
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the agricultural development advisory service research and development report, "Mammal and Bird Pests 1983".

  Mr. Ryder
  A copy of the report to which the hon. Member refers has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Deer
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will introduce a compulsory slaughter and compensation scheme for deer with tuberculosis;
  300
  (2) what is his Department's definition of (a) farmed deer, (b) parkland deer, and (c) wild deer;

  (3) what is his estimate of the extent of bovine tuberculosis in deer in the United Kingdom;

  (4) what steps his Ministry is taking to combat tuberculosis in deer.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Legislation has been introduced making tuberculosis in deer notifiable, together with marking and movement record requirements. A slaughter with compensation scheme is being urgently considered, as is the introduction of a voluntary health scheme based on herd testing. A blood test has been developed to support the intradermal tuberculin test and surveys are being conducted to assess the extent of tuberculosis in wild deer. Since 1971 only eight wild deer have been found to be infected. A total of eight deer herds are known to be infected and this compares to some 250 farmed deer herds in this country. Article 13(4)(b) of the Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 defines farmed deer; parkland deer and wild deer are not similarly defined.

  Lowestoft Fish Market
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now determine a date for a visit by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to Lowestoft fish market.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I very much hope to visit Lowestoft as soon as my other commitments allow.

  Hepatitis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, further to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 806, he will list the other treatments available in eliminating hepatitis A; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Hepatitis A is effectively eliminated from food by heat treatment. An additional treatment in the case of certain shellfish is maintenance in clean water for a suitable period.

  Advisory Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the relationship of(a) the food advisory committee, (b) the veterinary products committee and (c) the advisory committee on pesticides to the committee on food safety.

  Mr. Ryder
  The committee under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Richmond has been given the remit of advising me and my right hon. Friends on the microbiological safety of food. This committee will make recommendations as it sees fit on what further measures may be necessary to deal with food poisoning. We expect it to complete its work by mid-1990. The other three committees are permanent advisory committees with different terms of reference. There is therefore no formal relationship between them and Sir Mark Richmond's committee although the secretaries of the various committees will ensure that there is systematic contact on all matters of mutual interest.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the
  301
  relationship of (a) the food advisory committee, (h) the veterinary products committee and (c) the advisory committee on pesticides to the steering group on food surveillance.

  Mr. Ryder
  The steering group on food surveillance (SGFS) is a Government advisory committee which monitors the nutritional value and safety of the United Kingdom food supply. Its primary function is to identify and evaluate potential problems and to propose practical solutions, and it carries this out via a system of 10 working parties covering all the major areas relevant to its work.

  The food advisory committee (FAC) is an independent expert advisory committee which advises Ministers on the composition, labelling and advertising of food and on additives, contaminants and other substances that are, or may be, present in food or used in its preparation. The FAC is normally invited to comment on draft SGFS reports and may be asked to advise on any action required as a result of the findings of the SGFS.

  The veterinary products committee (VPC), an independent committee of experts in both human and veterinary health established under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968, advises the licensing authority on the licensing of veterinary medicines. The advisory committee on pesticides (ACP), which is also an independent statutory body, advises Ministers on approvals for pesticides.

  The SGFS keeps in close touch with the FAC, VPC and ACP and also specifically monitors pesticide residues and veterinary residues in food via its working party on pesticide residues and its working party on veterinary residues in animal products.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates of meetings of the advisory committee on pesticides and the items discussed at each meeting over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The advisory committee on pesticides met eight times and discussed a number of applications for approval of new active ingredients, reviews of older pesticides and a wide variety of related questions. A report on its work in 1988 will be published later this year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates of meetings of the veterinary products committee and the items discussed at each meeting over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the last 12 months the veterinary products committee met on the following dates:

  23 June 1988

  20–21 July 1988

  21–22 September 1988

  20 October 1988

  17 November 1988

  14 December 1988

  19 January 1989

  15–16 February 1989

  15–16 March 1989

  19–20 April 1989

  17–18 May 1989

  A summary of the VPC's discussions is contained within the "Annual Report for the Medicines Commission and Section 4 Committees", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The 1988 annual report is due to be published in the next few weeks and I shall ensure that a copy is made available in the Library.
  302
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the products for which product licences were(a) granted and (h) refused by the veterinary products committee in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Product licences are granted by the licensing authority on the advice of the veterinary products committee. Details of all newly licensed products are published regularly in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes. It would be a breach of the commercially confidential nature of the veterinary products committee's discussions to list those applications where the committee was minded to advise the licensing authority that a licence ought not be granted.

  Food Labelling
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the members and (b) the observers of the United Kingdom delegation at the Codex Alimentarius meeting on food labelling in Ottawa in April 1989 and the organisations for whom they worked.

  Mr. Ryder
  The head of food standards division (Mr. C. A. Cockbill) and the head of nutrition branch (Dr D. H. Buss) from my Department represented the United Kingdom at this year's meeting of the Codex committee on food labelling. There were no observers in the United Kingdom delegation.

  Advisory Committees (Publications)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any publications of(a) the food advisory committee, (b) the veterinary products committee and (c) the advisory committee on pesticides that were produced in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  There have been no publications from the food advisory committee in the last 12 months, but Ministers have made the following announcements as a result of advice received from the committee:—use of the term low alcohol' in the labelling of alcoholic drinks (MAFF Press Release 358/88
  —use of nutritional claims in food labelling and advertising (MAFF Press Release 253/88)
  —a proposal to ban the use of Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food (MAFF Press Release 53/89)
  —a proposal to ban the sale of certain pills intended as slimming aids (MAFF Press Release 388/88).

  In addition, the committee's comments on the report of the working party on pesticide residues 1985–88, published on 13 March 1988 in the food surveillance series, were appended to that report.

  During this same period, the 1987 annual report of the veterinary products committee was published within the 1987 report of the Medicines Commission. In addition, the advisory committee on pesticides' annual report for 1986 and its report on aerial applications of pesticides in 1987 were published.

  Ministers also announced the results of seven evaluations of new pesticides by the committee (press release 333/88) changes to, or revocation of, the approvals of four pesticides (press releases 312/88, 433/88, 450/88 and 204/88) and issued a paper reporting the results of

  303
  routine reviews of other, currently permitted pesticides (press release 117/89). Five other pesticide approvals have been included in the Department's pesticide register.

  All the publications and press releases have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the pesticides for which approvals were(a) given and (b) rejected in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  During 1988 my Department received 1,324 applications in relation to pesticide products and rejected 347 of them. In the same period we issued 1,371 approvals. These figures cover a variety of changes to existing products as well as new products. The latest annual listing of approved products is in "Pesticides 1989", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Abattoirs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a hygiene report for each of the abattoirs in the United Kingdom which received suspensions of their export licences under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspections) Regulations in 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Reports on individual premises must remain confidential to the operator of those premises, the Ministry and the local authority.

  Alar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people in his Department have been working, and how many man hours have been spent, on testing the pesticide Alar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 25 May at column 745, the review of the pesticide Alar was carried out by members of the advisory committee on pesticides. The detailed information available referred to in my response was assembled by

  Total community charges for a 2-adult household (without safely net)

  Average domestic rate bill per household

  Community charge without safety net

  Community charge with safety net

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Alyn and Deeside

  373

  429

  187

  216

  Colwyn

  383

  405

  192

  224

  Delyn

  391

  416

  196

  215

  Glyndwr

  386

  345

  193

  185

  Rhyddlan

  378

  399

  189

  201

  Wrexham Maelor

  382

  380

  191

  196

  Carmarthen

  336

  267

  168

  135

  Ceredigion

  319

  280

  160

  146

  Dinfwr

  310

  233

  155

  119

  Llanelli

  362

  284

  181

  150

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  310

  255

  155

  136

  South Pembrokeshire

  318

  311

  159

  166

  Blaenau Gwent

  351

  235

  175

  124

  Islwyn

  332

  265

  166

  135

  Monmouth

  310

  388

  155

  187

  Newport

  331

  383

  165

  204

  Torfaen

  336

  325

  168

  168

  Aberconwy

  319

  364

  160

  193

  Arfon

  315

  254

  158

  145

  Dwyfor

  318

  282

  159

  182

  304
  scientisits in pesticides safety division at Harpenden. In addition four scientists at the ADAS central science laboratory at Harpenden have spent some 750 man hours on work relating to residues of Alar including the establishment of a reliable method of detecting the small traces of residue that may be found in foodstuffs.

  WALES
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I follow no guidelines other than common sense considerations in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by my Department; these may suggest different journalists for different briefings according to specialist subjects and geography.

  Rating
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what each district council in Wales for the financial year 1989–90, without safety net, would have charged a household with two adults in 1989–90;

  (2) what was the average domestic rate bill per household for the financial year 1989–90 for each district council in Wales;

  (3) what, for each district council in Wales for the financial year 1989–90, the notional community charge per adult without safety net would have been if community charge had been in force in 1989–90;

  (4) what, for each district council in Wales for the financial year 1989–90, the notional community charge per adult, with safety net would have been if the community charge had been in force in 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  Illustrative figures, based on 1989–90 rate precepts and grant levels, are given in the table. Community charge figures have been calculated using present needs assessments which are under review. The average domestic rate bills given are on a basis consistent with the community charge figures.
  305

  Total community charges for a 2-adult household (without safety net)

  Average domestic rate bill per household

  Community charge without safety net

  Community charge with safety net

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Meirionnydd

  366

  278

  183

  182

  Ynys Mon

  326

  324

  163

  178

  Cynon Valley

  319

  213

  160

  114

  Merthyr Tydfil

  352

  249

  176

  131

  Ogwr

  362

  334

  181

  162

  Rhondda

  351

  175

  176

  95

  Rhymney Valley

  367

  295

  183

  148

  Taff Ely

  336

  324

  168

  166

  Brecknock

  290

  274

  145

  143

  Montgomeryshire

  261

  263

  130

  142

  Radnor

  274

  254

  137

  144

  Cardiff

  273

  391

  136

  200

  Vale of Glamorgan

  294

  367

  147

  176

  Port Talbot

  406

  285

  203

  151

  Lliw Valley

  387

  283

  193

  147

  Neath

  411

  298

  206

  154

  Swansea

  414

  423

  207

  215

  Wales

  342

  328

  171

  171

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was raised by local authorities in rates in Wales in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Grist
  The amount budgeted to be raised in rates in 1989–90 by the local authorities in Wales is £786·7 million.

  Planning (Completion Notices)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many completion notices have been issued by each Welsh local authority in each of the past three years in respect of part-implemented planning consents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Three completion notices have been issued by Welsh local authorities in the past three years; by Delyn borough council and Port Talbot borough council in 1988 and Carmarthen district council in 1989. The Port Talbot and Carmarthen notices were confirmed by the Secretary of State and the Delyn one rejected.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the figures for(a) all unemployed and (b) youth unemployment (16 to 24) for the Pembroke constituency in January 1987, January 1988, January 1989 and at the latest available date both in number and percentage terms.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of unemployed claimants in the Pembroke constituency is as follows:

  January 1987

  January 1988

  January2 1989

  April2 1989

  All unemployed claimants

  7,381

  6,232

  4,899

  4,088

  Youth unemployed2

  2,337

  1,966

  1,416

  1,153

  1 Unemployed claimants aged up to and including 24 years.

  2 These figures have been affected by the new benefit regulations for under 18 year olds introduced in September 1988.

  Unemployment rates are not calculated for parliamentary constituencies.

  Sewage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those applications made to him in the current year by water authorities for the lowering of effluent standards.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what applications have been made by the Welsh water authority for approval of relaxations and amendments to existing consent standards for the discharge of effluent from sewage treatment works; and if he will list the relaxations and amendments requested.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the table. I have received applications from Welsh Water for variations of existing discharge consents, which will reflect the current performance of individual works in respect of the following sewage treatment works.

  Rhodesmor

  Sesswick

  Sychdyn

  Tyddyn Hywel

  Tremeirchion

  Caernarfon

  Chester

  Chirk Rhosywaun

  Sarnau

  Chirk Bank

  Drury

  Five Fords

  Flint

  Glasfryn

  Gwalchmai

  Groes Bronallt

  Hanmer Arrowy

  Llan Penmachno

  Glynceiriog

  Eryrys

  Llanbrynmair

  Gates Heath

  Llaniestyn

  Llynfaes

  Llanarmon-yn-Yal

  Llanbedr DC

  Nant Glyn

  Overton

  Bettws GG

  Bryn Crug

  Betwys Yn Rhos

  Bithawia

  307

  Burton

  Llangaffo

  Llanfrothen

  LLanfaes B

  Llangefni

  Queensferry

  Pentre Halkyn

  Rhoslefain

  Llanddoget

  Broughall

  Penegoes

  Llanybri

  Llanddarag

  Rhandirmwyn

  Capel Iwan

  Lyls y Fran

  Llanybydder

  Llangybi

  Cross Inn

  Rosemarket

  Llanfair Cydogau

  New Chapel

  Llanddeni Brefi

  Ynys Las

  Ambleston

  Llangewdeirne

  Devils Bridge

  Hermon

  Carway

  Trimgaraw

  Fountain

  Cwmgwrach

  Ystradgynlais

  Raydypandy

  Lampeter Velfrey

  Cilycwm

  Kidwelly

  St. Twynwells

  Pembrey

  Burry Port

  Glwyswrw

  Aberdaron

  Verwig

  Llanwarne

  Sparrington

  Ruardean Woodside

  Acton Green

  Kcnderchurch

  Llandei Rhydderch

  Much Dewchurch

  Llanyre

  Llanyaply

  Llangarron (Herberts Hill)

  Llangamarch

  Llanbister

  Llanbedr

  Llyswen

  Lyonshall

  Presteigne

  St. Aryans

  Gross Gates

  Clyro

  Edwyn Ralph

  Glan Valley (Village)

  Garway

  Penward

  Rockfield

  Gardisley

  Much Cowarne

  Watford (Coughton Place)

  Weston Under Penyard

  Little Denchurch

  Stoke Edith

  Pipe and Lyde

  Stanford Bishop

  Weycock

  Rudry

  Pen coed Cae

  Draethen

  Droop

  308

  Ocle Pychard

  Llanelli

  Details of the relaxations and amendments are still under consideration by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  EC (Financial Support)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much financial support Wales received from the European Community in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Details of financial support from the European Community in 1987 are as follows:—

  1987

  Sources

  £ million

  European Regional Development

  1—

  Fund—Quota

  63·658

  European Investment Bank

  28·900

  European Coal and Steel Community

  1—

  European Social Fund

  5·558

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

  67·100

  1 Information for 1987 not yet available.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the current water quality clarifications of rivers in Wales and any changes being recommended to these clarifications by the Welsh water authority and any changes in water quality objectives that may he involved in these reclarifications.

  Mr. Grist
  The current water authority classifications of rivers in Wales are contained within the 1985 river quality survey, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Any changes will be incorporated in the next survey, which is due to be carried out in 1990.

  Polytechnic of Wales
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to the alleged deficiencies in the financial accounts of the Polytechnic of Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. This is a matter for the Polytechnic of Wales' maintaining authority (Mid Glamorgan county council).

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the most recent resignations of members of staff at the Polytechnic of Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Mid Glamorgan county council has informed officials that two members of the Polytechnic of Wales' staff have resigned following an investigation by the authority's internal audit department.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet other Foreign Ministers to discuss international debt; and if he will make a statement.
  309
  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply given him on 8 February 1989 at column 739.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the effect on the security of the Falkland Islands of the recent election in Argentina.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are satisfied that the garrison remains adequate for the present, but we keep force levels in the Falklands under constant review, particularly since Argentina has not yet declared a cessation of hostilities. We would not hesitate to increase the garrison if necessary.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Crocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The FCO has a daily press conference at 12.30 open to any bona fide journalist. We decide which journalists to invite to other press briefings in the light of the matter under discussion.

  Bulgaria (Turkish Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation Her Majesty's Government have made at the current CSCE human rights conference in Paris about the treatment of the Turkish ethnic minorities in Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our long-standing concern about Bulgaria's treatment of its Turkish minority has been heightened recently by the harsh reaction of the Bulgarian authorities to demonstrations in the north-east and south of the country.

  I raised this question with the Bulgarian ambassador on 1 June, and the leader of our delegation to the Paris conference referred to it in his opening statement on 31 May. Our concern is shared by our EC partners, and the presidency is making representations to the Bulgarian authorities on behalf of the Twelve.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals are being considered by the European Commission for a tax on energy consumption to finance recovery of the disappearing tropical rain forests of the third world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Commission has not tabled any proposals for action to conserve rain forests.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will explain the differences in the categories of Hong Kong residents referred to in Government replies on 6 June as(a) 3·6 million, Official Report, column 16, (b) 3·5 million, Official Report, column 16 and (c) 3·25 million, Official Report, column 31.
  310
  Mr. Eggar
  There is no exact figure for the number of British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong. The figures quoted are all estimates.

  China (British Students)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British students are studying full or part-time in China; and what measures are being taken to ensure their safety.

  Mr. Eggar
  The exact number of British students in China, either full-time or part-time is not known. Prior to the outbreak of the present troubles, the British Council was aware of 135 full-time students at Chinese universities; but there were probably more, some in the provinces.

  In recent days, the British embassy in Peking, the British consulate-general in Shanghai and the British Council offices in these cities have sought to contact all those students registered with them and with others whose names were subsequently provided. They have been given the same advice as that given to other British nationals, that is, if they are in areas where there has been trouble and if they feel concerned for their safety, they should leave China as soon as possible by normal commercial means such as scheduled air services.

  Many students were given refuge in the British embassy. At least 70 have left for Hong Kong, some of whom are now back in the United Kingdom.

  Minister of State (Lunch)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the lunch between Mr. John Sergeant, chief political correspondent of the BBC, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the Mijanou restaurant on Thursday 25 May was brought forward at short notice.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Two lunches with journalists, which had been long requested, were brought forward following the postponement at short notice of my visit to Hungary, originally scheduled for 24 and 25 May.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when Mr. Afzal Khan, whose date of birth is 18 November 1969, and whose reference is IMM 92807, applied for entry clearance to the United Kingdom at her Majesty's embassy in Islamabad; when his application was refused; and when an explanatory statement setting out the detailed grounds of refusal was despatched to Mr. Khan or his representation;

  (2) when instructions were sent to the British embassy in Islamabad to issue a visa to Mr. Zahood Ahmed to enter the United Kingdom; when Mr. Ahmed, whose date of birth is 22 July 1967 and whose Home Office reference is A412361, first applied for entry clearance; when Mr. Ahmed's appeal against refusal to grant him a visa was upheld; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not readily available as the embassy in Islamabad is closed for the Moslem weekend. I will reply to the hon. Member in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trading Partners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list Britain's top 20 trading partners for(a) 1979 and (b) 1988 with the value and percentage shown of exports to and imports from each.

  United Kingdom's top 20 trading partners

  Imports

  Exports

  Country

  £ billion

  percentage

  £ billion

  percentage

  1979

  1. Germany

  5·8

  12·0

  4·2

  9·9

  2. USA

  4·9

  10·1

  4·0

  9·5

  3. France

  4·1

  8·4

  3·1

  7·2

  4. Netherlands

  3·4

  7·1

  3·1

  7·2

  5. Switzerland

  2·6

  5·3

  2·4

  5·6

  6. Belgium-Luxembourg

  2·3

  4·8

  2·5

  5·8

  7. Ireland

  1·7

  3·5

  2·6

  6·0

  8. Italy

  2·5

  5·1

  1·5

  3·4

  9. Sweden

  1·6

  3·3

  1·5

  3·6

  10. Norway

  1·3

  2·7

  0·8

  1·8

  11. Japan

  1·5

  3·1

  0·6

  1·4

  12. Denmark

  1·1

  2·2

  1·0

  2·4

  13. Canada

  1·3

  2·6

  0·8

  1·8

  14. Saudi Arabia

  1·1

  2·3

  0·9

  2·1

  15. Spain

  0·7

  1·5

  0·6

  1·3

  16. Australia

  0·5

  1·0

  0·8

  2·0

  17. South Africa

  0·5

  1·1

  0·7

  1·7

  18. Soviet Union

  0·8

  1·7

  0·4

  1·0

  19. Finland

  0·8

  1·6

  0·4

  1·0

  20. Hong Kong

  0·7

  1·4

  0·4

  1·0

  1988

  1. Germany

  17·7

  16·6

  9·5

  11·7

  2. USA

  10·8

  10·1

  10·5

  13·0

  3. France

  9·4

  8·8

  8·3

  10·2

  4. Netherlands

  8·3

  7·8

  5·6

  6·9

  5. Italy

  5·8

  5·5

  4·1

  5·0

  6. Belgium-Luxembourg

  5·0

  4 7

  4·3

  5·2

  7. Japan

  6·6

  6·1

  1·7

  2·1

  8. Ireland

  3·9

  3·6

  4·1

  5·0

  9. Switzerland

  3·8

  3·6

  1·9

  2·3

  10. Sweden

  3·4

  3·2

  2·2

  2·7

  11. Spain

  2·5

  2·3

  2·7

  3·3

  12. Norway

  3·1

  2·9

  1·1

  1·3

  13. Canada

  2·0

  1·9

  2·0

  2·5

  14. Denmark

  2·0

  1·9

  1·2

  1·4

  15. Hong Kong

  1·8

  1·7

  1·0

  1·3

  16. Finland

  1·8

  1·7

  0·8

  1·0

  17. Australia

  0·7

  0·7

  1·4

  1·7

  18. South Africa

  0·8

  0·8

  1·1

  1·0

  19. Portugal

  0·9

  0·9

  0·8

  1·0

  20. Saudi Arabia

  0·6

  0·6

  1·7

  2·1

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Central America (Trade)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the amount of trade in each direction between central America and the United Kingdom for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the table:

  United Kingdom trade with Central America from 1985–1988

  Year

  Imports

  Exports

  1985

  315·7

  378·3

  1986

  193·8

  319·1

  1987

  316·8

  344·2

  1988

  247·7

  315·4

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics, Table 1B

  Notes:

  1 1988 figures are provisional·

  312
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the table:

  2 Exports fob; imports cif.

  Central America: Belize, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico.

  Mail Users Association (Publication)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received the May 1989 publication from the Mail Users Association entitled "Deliver us from the Post Office"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I was interested to see a copy of the Mail Users Association-Association of Mail Order Publishers report. The report's recommendations mainly cover operational matters, and so fall within the responsibility of the Post Office. The Post Office has no present plans to implement its recommendations, but keeps the situation under review.

  Television Technology
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the combined initiatives by the(a) Japanese Government and business community and (b) United States Government and business community, with regard to research and commercial development of high-definition display television technology at the level of (i) their internal and (ii) international markets; and if he will make a statement regarding the United Kingdom's competitiveness, internal and international, in this technology.

  Mr. Forth
  The Japanese have been developing high-definition television technology for the last 18 years at a cost of some $700 million and are able to offer professional studio products to customers. In 1988 the state-owned broadcasting company established a demonstration satellite link feeding coverage of the Seoul Olympics to 200 high-definition displays at 50 sites including shopping malls, railway stations and leisure centres.

  Until recently the United States supported the Japanese high-definition television system and had no development programme of its own, but it has now indicated its intention to develop a system more suited to its own particular requirements. The United States Defence Department has announced a $30 million programme to fund research on high-definition television related technology. A number of United States companies have presented a plan for a $1·35 billion national collaborative high-definition television project to Congress. One recent United States industry estimate has suggested that the worldwide market for high-definition television could total S40 billion by the year 2010.

  The development of high-definition television for Europe is a collaborative activity under the EUREKA programme to which the United Kingdom is firmly committed. Leading organisations in the United television industry are at the forefront of many aspects of European high-definition television technology, and with Government support are making significant contributions to the EUREKA project. Equipment developed in the project was successfully demonstrated at the international broadcasting convention last September. The United Kingdom is also fully involved in European efforts to gain international acceptance for the European system.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Government Departments are assisting with research and sponsorship for the high-definition display television technology.

  Mr. Forth
  This is the responsibility of my Department.

  EEC (Burden Sharing)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions have been held with EEC Ministers regarding any burden-sharing arrangement applying to the import of textiles after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs on 9 March 1989 at column 595. There has so far been no 314
  detailed Community discussion of future arrangements, including burden-sharing arrangements, for EC quotas on textiles and clothing.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received in the current year, to date, urging the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Support for the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement was expressed by representatives of the Apparel Knitwear and Textiles Alliance and by a delegation from the all-party group for textiles and the textile industry support campaign when I met them on 11 April and 18 May respectively. In addition I have received seven letters in this sense from hon. Members and the United Kingdom industry.

  Selective Investment Brokers Ltd.
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 480, why his Department did not undertake an investigation into the affairs of Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. in December 1986, or earlier following letters to the company from Companies house, Cardiff, in 1984 and 1985 attempting to obtain information regarding the company's trading status;

  (2) what action was taken by his Department to initiate an investigation into the affairs of Selective Investment Brokers Ltd., using powers under section 447 of the 1985 Companies Act, or any other relevant powers, following the submission of the Wiltshire constabulary to the Director of Public Prosecutions and his opinion that the report did not disclose sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: The purpose of the letters sent out by Companies house to Selective Investment Brokers Ltd. was to discover whether it was trading and whether dissolution action against it should be taken. Many such letters are sent out routinely every year. They do not in themselves indicate that investigations of the companies to which they are addressed are merited.

  In December 1986 my Department received a complaint made on behalf of an investor in the company. The Bank of England was informed of this complaint in January 1987. Subsequently, there was liaison between the DTI, the Bank of England, and the Wiltshire police who made inquiries. A report was submitted by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions who concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a criminal investigation. The DPP did not refer the matter to my Department which did not receive any further information from any source concerning the company until after it was placed in voluntary liquidation in June 1988.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rates
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average domestic rates bill in England and Wales for 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  £502.

  Water and Sewage Charges
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the average water rate and sewage charge made in England and Wales in 1989–90;

  (2) what is the average water rate and sewage charge made to people on income support in England and Wales for 1989–90.

  Mr. Howard
  The average domestic bill for water authority customers in England and Wales in 1989–90 is £2·29 per week. Information is not separately available for customers on income support.

  Aquatic Flora and Fauna
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 4 May to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby,Official Report, column 245, whether he will estimate the extent of (a) short-term and (b) long-term damage to aquatic flora and fauna in inland waters and estuaries caused by pollution incidents.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Specific information concerning the impact of pollution incidents is not available centrally. Water authorities make their own detailed assessments in individual cases: these are to enable management to ensure that appropriate remedial measures can be carried out. The cumulative impact of all sources of pollution is assessed through routine river quality monitoring, the results of which are published comprehensively in the regular national river quality surveys. The most recent survey was carried out in 1985. In future this work will be carried out by the National Rivers Authority, which will also wish to review monitoring procedures. Work on the next river quality survey will commence in 1990.

  Waste Disposal Authorities
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Suffolk county council on his consultation paper regarding the role and function of waste disposal authorities; and what steps he is taking to avoid a hiatus in the search for and acquisition of new disposal sites as foreshadowed by the county council between the date of issuance of his Green Paper and the anticipated date of his implementing his proposed changes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received from Suffolk county council detailed comments about the consultation paper on the role and functions of waste disposal authorities. These comments, along with many others, are being given careful consideration.

  Until any changes are implemented, waste disposal authorities will retain their duties under present legislation to arrange, through public or private sector facilities, for the disposal of waste collected by the waste collection authorities. Under the arrangements proposed in the consultation paper public facilities would be provided by local authority waste disposal companies. On the due date all the waste disposal assets of a disposal authority would be transferred to the company which will be under the authority's control as shareholder and board member. There is no reason why a hiatus need develop in the search for and acquisition of new disposal sites.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to introduce provisions by which a privatised water industry could impose a price surcharge to discourage the use of water during a period of drought.

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 283, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, what have been the results of his deliberations in respect of changes to section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have not yet reached any decisions on this matter. We shall report to the House as soon as we have done so.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of additional nitrate pollution in water induced by run-off through the use of urea to clear frost from highways and runways.

  Mr. Howard
  We have no evidence to suggest that the use of urea to clear frost from highways and runways contributes significantly to nitrate pollution of water.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing housing starts in each region in the quarter to March showing the percentage change in starts from the quarter ending February 1989 and the quarter ending March 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housebuilding starts for regions in England in the March quarter of 1989 and the corresponding period a year earlier are given in the table.

  Housebuilding starts in thousands

  March quarter 1989

  March quarter 1988

  Percentage change

  North

  2·1

  2·6

  +23

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4·3

  4·4

  +4

  East Midlands

  5·2

  4·7

  -9

  East Anglia

  3·9

  3·3

  -15

  South East:

  Greater London

  4·0

  4·3

  +8

  Rest of South East

  14·6

  12·2

  -17

  South West

  7·3

  5·4

  -26

  West Midlands

  5·2

  4·4

  -16

  North West

  4·5

  5·0

  +12

  England

  50·9

  46·2

  -9

  Provisional estimates of housebuilding starts in the three months to February 1989 were given in my answer to the hon. Member on 4 May 1989.

  Seal Pups
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations have been received by his Department seeking a continuation of the European Community ban on the import of harp and hooded seal pup skins and products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received a number of representations seeking a continuation of the EC ban. The United Kingdom fully supported the European Commission's proposal for an indefinite extension of the ban and we were successful in securing our European partners' agreement to this at the EC Environment Council meeting on 8 June.

  Water Supplies (Chlorine)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the levels of chlorine in water supplies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally. It is for individual water undertakers with their knowledge of local conditions to determine the level of chlorine necessary to disinfect the water supply and to maintain bacterial quality of the water during distribution.

  Peregrine Falcons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure the safety of peregrine falcons in Wales under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The peregrine falcon is listed on schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a species protected by special penalties. The Act makes it an offence to kill, injure or take a peregrine; destroy or take its eggs or damage or destroy its nest. Anyone found guilty of such an offence is liable to a fine of up to £2,000. Enforcement of these provisions is a matter for the police authorities and the courts.

  Wolf Hybrid Dogs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now halt the sale of wolf hybrid dogs as pets and have them registered as wild animals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 provides controls over the keeping of wild animals by requiring people who wish to do so to obtain a licence from the appropriate local authority. These licences are issued only if stringent conditions concerning safety and welfare have been met. The term "dangerous wild animal" is not defined in the Act, other than by reference to a list of species, which includes wolves, in the schedule to the Act. Mammal hybrids (arising from cross breeding of domestic and wild animals) are covered by the Act if at least one parent is of a species listed in the schedule to the Act.

  Separate legislation, the Dogs Act 1871, exists to control dangerous dogs, and empowers the police to take action against anyone failing to control a dangerous dog.

  Birchfield Estate, Handsworth
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date Birmingham city council 318
  submitted a proposal for a security project on the Birchfield estate, Handsworth, Birmingham; and when he expects a decision to be made.

  Mr. Trippier
  The idea was first suggested in December 1987. An urban programme scheme proposal was received from Birmingham city council on 7 September 1988 and approval in principle was issued on 29 September 1988. Detailed costs and plans allowing the go-ahead to spend have not been received to date.

  Birds
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to ensure the continued survival within the United Kingdom of the following species of bird:(a) the bittern, (b) the red-backed shrike, (c) the corncrake, (d) the red kite, (e) the white-tailed sea eagle and (f) the marsh-warbler.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All these species are listed in schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as being protected by special penalties. Anyone attempting, in contravention of the Act, to kill, injure or take such a bird or to destroy its eggs or nests is liable on conviction to a fine of up to £2,000. In addition, important habitats are safeguarded through the Act's provisions for the notification of sites of special scientific interest. Where appropriate, further action is taken through the classification of special protection areas under article 4 of EC directive 79/409/EEC.

  Nene Washes (Bird Reserve)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it was a condition of the grant application recently discussed between the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to extend the existing Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserve on the Nene Washes, near Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire, by the purchase of 16·5 acres of adjoining land within the existence site of special scientific interest, that no grant would be given unless the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds allowed shooting over it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that the NCC considered the application by RSPB for the purchase of land to extend their existing Nene Washes reserve strictly in the light of the policy agreed with my right hon. Friend that traditional country rights and uses should not be interfered with wherever they are not in direct conflict with conservation interests. Since there was no evidence that the continuation of sporting rights over the site was incompatible with conservation interests the NCC felt unable to offer grant assistance to RSPB if the extinguishment of those rights formed an integral part of the purchase objectives.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether restrictions relating to products using chlorofluorocarbons will include inhalers used for medicinal purposes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Members of the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association have agreed to end all
  319
  non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons in their products by the end of this year. The industry is actively researching alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons in medical equipment and we expect these to be introduced as soon as they are commercially available and have been approved by the appropriate authorities.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the community charge regulations allow for delivery of community charge registration forms by registration officers in England to addresses in Scotland;

  (2) whether the community charge regulations allow registration officers in England to take action against occupiers of houses in Scotland for non-registration for community charge purposes.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 6 June 1987]: A community charge registration officer may request information from anyone he reasonably believes is, or has been, or will be subject to a community charge in his area. Anyone failing without reasonable excuse to supply the information, or knowingly supplying wrong information, may be subject to a penalty. Nothing in the legislation precludes requests being made to an address in Scotland, or penalties being imposed on individuals with an address in Scotland, in connection with a community charge arising in England or Wales.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) the progress being made in making fully operational the valuation and community charge tribunals, (b) the additional costs involved and (c) the role of his Department's staff in this process.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: The Department's staff are working closely with members and clerks of the valuation and community charge tribunals to ensure that they have the resources to carry out their functions. Good progress has been made in designing and installing computer systems, in providing enlarged accommodation, and in recruiting and training the staff needed for this task. The cost of running the tribunals in England in 1989–90 is expected to exceed the cost of the old local valuation panels in 1988–89 by about £4 million.

  Effluent
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those applications which have been sent to his Department in the current year for the lowering of effluent standards by water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  No. On 11 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced at column 520 that a list of those sewage works for which applications for time-limited consents had been made had been placed in the Library of the House. These consents will regularise current performance while improvement work is undertaken as part of the £1 billion capital programme to bring sewage treatment works up to standard by March 1992. On completion, long-term consent conditions for these works, no less stringent than those which presently apply, will be imposed. The overall programme will result in significant improvements to river quality.

DEFENCE

  MARILYN
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with MARILYN.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 8 June at columns 388–90, in which I announced that copies of an abridged version of the MARILYN report, which will underpin much of the Ministry of Defence's future work on the problems of army manpower supply in the years ahead, had been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear missiles have been stationed in the United Kingdom since the United States-Soviet intermediate nuclear forces treaty came into effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At the time the INF treaty came into effect last summer there were 96 operational United States group-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) at RAF Greenham Common and 16 at RAF Molesworth. Since then RAF Molesworth has been closed as a GLCM forward operating base and all the missiles removed.

  Half the missiles from RAF Greenham Common will be withdrawn in late 1989; the rest will return to the United States in the first half of 1991.

  US Air Force Aircraft (Missiles)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many United States Air Force aircraft based in the United Kingdom are equipped with(a) AGM-69A short-range attack missiles and (b) air-launched cruise missiles; if he will name the types of aircraft that would be used to deploy these weapons, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  "Who Framed Colin Wallace"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the allegations concerning the activities of the information policy unit of the Army information services reported during the 1970s made by former serving army officers and civil servants reported in the book, "Who Framed Colin Wallace" by Mr. Paul Foot.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Destroyers and Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many destroyers and frigates of the surface fleet were available for service at 24 hours notice on 1 June 1988, 1 January 1989 and 1 June 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of ships available for operations at precise periods of notice are classified. However, the table shows the total number of destroyers and frigates in service together with those that were available for operational deployment immediately or within a short period for each of the dates requested.
  321

  Number of DDIFF available for operational deployment immediately or within a short period

  Total DD/FF in service

  Number

  1 June 1988

  47

  40

  1 January 1989

  48

  40

  1 June 1989

  47

  40

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Invitations to press briefings depend very much on the subject under discussion.

  NATO (Binational Divisions)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the creation of binational divisions within NATO, on the model of the Anglo-Dutch marine force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom/Netherlands amphibious force has an important part to play in NATO's plans for reinforcement of the northern region. We welcome such practical bilateral co-operation within the Alliance where it serves to enhance overall defence capabilities.

  Service Personnel (Children's Education)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children of service men are being educated in the private sector on Ministry of Defence grants; and how many of these children are being educated at Crookham Court school, Newbury, Berkshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, there were some 22,400 children of service personnel for whom boarding school allowance was being claimed; this figure includes those attending state boarding schools. At Crookham Court school, there are at present 32 children of service parents.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Share Sales)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends to take to prevent a foreign sale of shares in Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The term contract requires that the prior approval of the Secretary of State must be sought to any change in the ownership or structure of the management company, and the parent companies FKI, Babcock and Thorn EMI are required to ensure that any foreign shareholding in the dockyard management company is less than 30 per cent.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had before 7 June with Thorn EMI over the sale of its stake in Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies have indicated an interest in purchasing the Thorn EMI stake in Rosyth dockyard.
  322
  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department is not aware of any expressions of interest.

  HMS Southampton
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on HMS Southampton.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Shortly.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to meet Thorn EMI to discuss the future of Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have no plans to do so at present. My officials are however in touch with Thorn EMI and also with FKI Babcock, the majority partner in management company at Rosyth (BTL).

  Royal Dockyard Management
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence whether he will review the contract for royal dockyard management as a result of the uncertainty created from company takeovers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The term contract requires that the prior approval of the Secretary of State must be soughs: to any change in the ownership of, or structure of the management company.

  Nuclear Weapons (Germany)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the Palme commission proposal to negotiate a 150 km nuclear weapon free zone on either side of the inter-German border.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This Government oppose the creation of a nuclear weapon free zone in Europe, which we believe would not increase but reduce security and stability. The territory of such a zone would still be under threat from weapons positioned outside the zone but targeted on it. Verification would be difficult, if not impossible, since the small size and mobility of many nuclear weapons means that they could be rapidly deployed back into the zone at a time of tension, thus increasing rather than reducing the risk of war. Such a zone would also undermine NATO's strategy of forward defence.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, pursuant to the undertaking given by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) on 8 June during the debate on the Army the hon. Member for Linlithgow may expect a detailed reply to points raised during the debate on former officer Colin Wallace and the role of Army intelligence in BBC statements relating to alleged blackmail of Labour hon. Members.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what mechanism exists to allow for reconsideration of the allocation of a prisoner to a particular prison;

  (2) what weighting is given to the needs of a prisoner when the allocation to a particular prison is made; and at what stage in the process of allocation an assessment takes place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The allocation decision is made as soon as possible after the prisoner is received under sentence, and takes account, inter alia, of an assessment of the prisoner's needs which is based on information from records and from interview. The weight which it is possible to give to this factor varies according to circumstances and each case is considered on its merits. Prison service procedures require the allocation decision to be reviewed at least annually following reassessment of the prisoner's security category. It is open to any prisoner to apply at any time to be reallocated.

  Police Car Chases
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths there have been during the current year as a result of police car chases(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the west midlands.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Full information will not be available until returns are submitted by individual forces to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary after the end of the year. However, I am aware of 12 specific accidents which have occurred since 1 March 1989 in cases where the police were pursuing a vehicle, or responding to emergency calls, which have resulted in a total of 15 fatalities. Two of these accidents occurred in the west midlands police area. I understand that there was one other fatal accident in the west midlands police area in February 1989.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Media representatives are invited to press briefings according to the nature of the subject to be discussed.

  Street Robbery
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against street robbery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The police give high priority to dealing with street robbery. In 1988 robbery, including mugging, fell by 4 per cent. Certain high-crime urban areas will benefit from our safer cities programme, and we have produced a crime prevention handbook which contains advice on how to reduce the risk of being attacked; nearly 2.5 million copies have been distributed.

  Passports
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the speed and efficiency of the passport issuing offices; and if he will consider instituting regional offices for this purpose.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 6 June to a question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) at column 47. There are at present six regional passport offices in the United Kingdom. Since the great majority of passport applications are usually dealt with by post, the location of the issuing office is not normally a significant factor in determining the speed of service. We shall, however, be reviewing the location and number of offices later this year.

  Democracy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken on increasing the levels of participation in the democratic process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None directly, though the numbers of people registered to vote in each constituency or electoral area, and the numbers voting, are published after each parliamentary or European parliamentary general election, and following the local government elections in May each year. I understand that an opinion poll carried out by NOP in February/March 1988 found that nearly a quarter of those surveyed said that they would be more likely to vote in local elections when the community charge is introduced.

  Hillsborough Stadium Disaster
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who compiled the video of the Hillsborough tragedy which was shown to the inquiry on 19 May; who supervised the editing of it; what steps he is taking to ensure that the edited-out film was not relevant to the policing of the event; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  These are matters for Lord Justice Taylor, but I understand that the video tape shown on 19 May to his inquiry into the Hillsborough stadium disaster was compiled by the west midlands police inquiry team and the Treasury Solicitor's Department from material supplied to the inquiry by the BBC, South Yorkshire police and Sheffield Wednesday football club. Further material was subsequently shown to the inquiry.

  A catalogue of all the video material available to the inquiry has been given to counsel for all the parties represented, who may see any of it if they wish to do so.

  Lollipop Persons
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North of 20 April,Official Report, columns 289–90, what progress has been made with the review of the pay of lollipop ladies and gentlemen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Authority has recently been given for an increase averaging 4·5 per cent. in the basic rates
  325
  payable to school crossing patrols with effect from 1 September 1988. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the new rates of pay (including the arrears) will be paid from the middle of this month.

  Children's Television
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he gave to children's television programmes provision in drawing up his White Paper on broadcasting; if he will take steps to ensure adequate funding for specific high-quality British material for children's television; and what steps he will take to ensure a minimum adequate level of income for children's programmes on channels 3 and 5.

  Mr. Renton
  There is at present no specific requirement on the broadcasting authorities to provide children's television programmes, other than schools broadcasts and educational programming—and we see no case for creating such a new requirement in the future.

  The general approach of the White Paper on broadcasting is that regulatory bodies should no longer seek to lay down in detail what programmes are shown and when. The White Paper makes it clear that the BBC will continue to be expected to provide high-quality programming across the full range of public tastes and interests. The existing remit of channel 4 is also to be fully sustained. As regards channels 3 and 5, the White Paper proposes that licensees should be subject to a series of quality tests including requirements to provide a diverse programme service calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests.

  We see no reason why high-quality children's programmes, sustained by viewer demand, should not continue to flourish on British television after 1992.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has undertaken into the needs of children for high-quality British programmes other than educational programmes on television.

  Mr. Renton
  None. Market research into the level and nature of the demand for children's television programmes is a matter for the broadcasters.

  Suicides (Prisoners)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners who committed suicide whilst on remand in 1987 and 1988 had been remanded for psychiatric reports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three in 1987 and three in 1988.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned for failing to pay fines imposed for using a television set without a licence in the latest year for which figures are available.

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

  Slopping Out
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the number of and (b) the proportion of inmates of young offender institutions who have to slop out.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, there were something over 3,100 young offenders having to slop out. The proportion of inmates in young offender institutions having to slop out on that date was approximately 46 per cent.

  European Prison Rules
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which rules of the European prison rules are not yet complied with by the prison service; which rules the service does not currently have plans to comply with; and what are the estimated dates for compliance with those rules which the prison service intends to comply with but has not yet done so.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European prison rules are intended to guide member states of the Council of Europe in their internal legislation and practice. Her Majesty's prison service in England and Wales complies fully or partially with all of them. Those which are partially complied with are: 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 25, 39, 42, 65, 67, 71, 94, 96 and 99. There are at present no plans to comply fully with some aspects of rules 14, 39, 67, 96 and 99. The remainder will be complied with as soon as practicable, but it is not possible to give estimated dates.

  Electronic Surveillance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if electronic surveillance schemes will be used in court areas in England and Wales which have bail information schemes.

  Mr. John Patten
  No bail information schemes, as normally defined, are operating within the three electronic monitoring areas.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it will be possible for participants in the electronic surveillance schemes in England and Wales to remove the equipment during the course of the pilot project.

  Mr. John Patten
  Yes, but any removal of the equipment will be readily detectable.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if telephones will be installed, or homes provided in appropriate cases, for participants in electronic surveillance schemes.

  Mr. John Patten
  If a participant who is otherwise suitable does not have a telephone, one will be installed, free of charge. But it will not be possible for him to use it in the normal way: it will provide solely for communication with the central monitoring station through electronic barring at the telephone exchange. The trials will proceed on the basis that participants must be resident in the petty sessional division concerned or be able to make suitable arrangements for such residence during any period of electronic monitoring.
  327
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the maximum length of time that a participant can expect to spend tagged in an electronic surveillance scheme in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not available in the form requested. The period for which a participant may be monitored will depend on a number of factors, including whether the case is committed for trial to the Crown court. In such a case the average waiting time from first appearance to completion at magistrates' courts in 1988 was eight weeks. The average time from committal to a Crown court to the start of the case was 12·2 weeks.

  Cashpoint Thefts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a public inquiry into the banks' handling of cashpoint thefts in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The working group on commercial robbery set up by the standing conference on crime prevention reported in 1986 and did not identify this as a notable problem.

  Metropolitan Police Officers (Firearms)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the code of conduct concerning the use of firearms by police officers of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  The guidelines on the issue and use of firearms, which apply to all police forces in England and Wales, were revised in December 1986 by the Association of Chief Police Officers in conjunction with the Home Office working group on the police use of firearms.

  A copy of these guidelines was placed in the Library on 3 February 1987, as part of a summary of the working group's 1986 report.

  Chinese Students (Political Refugees)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to accept applications for political asylum from Chinese students presently studying in the United Kingdom, who fear for their safety if they return to China.

  Mr. Renton
  Any application for asylum will be considered in accordance with the UN 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.

  In addition, while the situation in China remains uncertain, we shall look sympathetically at any application by a Chinese national to extend their stay, depending on their individual circumstances.

  Isle of Man (Police Action)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has sought or received from the Isle of Man authorities regarding police action against Transport and General Workers Union officials, Bernard Moffat and David Quirk, following allegations regarding leaked information; if he has received representations that such action contravenes the European convention on human rights; what action he has taken or proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.
  328
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations on the matters referred to. Having ascertained the facts from the Isle of Man authorities, he is satisfied that the matters are the responsibility of the Isle of Man Government. He has received no indication in this connection of a possible contravention of the European convention on human rights.

  Police Forces (Training Manuals)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the content of training manuals used in police forces in relation to HIV infection, AIDS, hepatitis B, and other similar issues; and whether copies of such manuals can be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Individual police force training manuals are not held centrally. However, Home Office circulars have been issued to all police forces in England and Wales giving guidance on AIDS (No. 72/1988 on 12 August 1988) and on hepatitis B (No. 48/1989 on 9 June 1989). Copies were sent to the Library.

  Lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in view of investigations taking place in the United States of America by the criminal investigation division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Army, chief of police of the state of Utah and the Attorney-General of County Medolino in northern California of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino of the United States Army involving allegations of serious sexual offences against children, he will take steps to deny him entry into the United Kingdom until such time as all allegations have been tested in a court of law in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  It is unlikely that action under the immigration rules could be taken on the basis of untested allegations alone, but should Colonel Aquino either come here or apply for an entry clearance to do so, a decision about his eligibility under the immigration rules would be taken in the light of all the information available at the time.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Investment
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to increase the amount of money available for investment in the railway system.

  Mr. Channon
  Yes. I expect investment by BR in the railway to be some £781 million this financial year, the highest in real terms since 1962. BR plans to increase its investment by a further 19 per cent. by 1991–92.

  Motorway Congestion
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to relieve congestion on the motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 18 May in "Roads for Prosperity",
  329
  more than doubling the trunk road programme to over £12 billion, are aimed at relieving congestion on motorways and trunk roads.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he is taking to improve road safety.

  Mr. Channon
  We are now saving 560 lives a year, compared with the position two years ago when I set our overall target.

  We have today launched a new campaign against drinking and driving, using fresh TV commercials and publicity material. The basic message remains that "drinking and driving wrecks lives".

  British Rail Branch Line Services
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the future of British Rail branch line services.

  Mr. Portillo
  We receive a variety of representations about such services.

  Channel Tunnel
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the carriage of freight on the rail link from the Channel tunnel through London.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received many representations about the importance of rail freight traffic through the Channel tunnel. We have also received representations about the railway lines which British Rail proposes to use to carry this traffic. This is a matter for the board. It is not its current intention to use the proposed new rail link between London and the tunnel for heavy freight trains.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the carriage of freight on the rail link from the Channel tunnel through London.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received many representations about the importance of rail freight traffic through the Channel tunnel. We have also received representations about the railway lines which British Rail proposes to use to carry this traffic. This is a matter for the board. It is not its current intention to use the proposed rail link between London and the tunnel for heavy freight trains.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give figures showing the months of the year with the highest incidence of drinking and driving; and if he will explain the reasons underlying the Department of Transport's campaign strategy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A good indicator of drink-driving patterns is the number of death and injury accidents involving drivers over the legal limit. These tend to peak in the summer as the monthly figures for 1987 (the latest complete year available) show.

  That is why we are today launching a summer drink-drive campaign with two new TV commercials, to complement the regular Christmas campaigns.
  330
  The monthly figures are as follows:

  Accidents involving death or personal injury where the driver or rider had a blood or alcohol level above the legal limit—1987

  Number

  January

  680

  February

  740

  March

  880

  April

  890

  May

  1,140

  June

  1,050

  July

  1,060

  August

  1,100

  September

  970

  October

  1,030

  November

  1,020

  December

  970

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the role low and non-alcoholic drinks have to play in the campaign against drinking and driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The continuing rapid growth in the demand for non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic drinks (NABLABS) show that they are attractive alternatives for the driver as well as others. This sector of the drinks industry has doubled each year over the last two years. NABLABS mean that no driver has any excuse at all for drinking and driving. There is always an attractive alternative drink available in pubs and clubs. These should be in restaurants, too. Private hosts should ensure the same is true when they entertain.

  "Roads for Prosperity"
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding his White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity".

  Mr. Channon
  I have received many representations about "Roads for Prosperity". Most express strong support.

  London Underground (Automatic Barriers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of London Underground Ltd., the current installation of automatic ticket barriers.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend met Mr. Newton on 18 May, when the Underground ticketing system was discussed, among other matters.

  East Coast Infrastructure
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made an assessment of the transport infrastructure requirements of the east coast of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend announced in "Roads for Prosperity" major improvements to the A1 and other trunk roads in eastern England resulting from our detailed assessment of trunk road needs. It is respectively for British Rail, local authorities and port authorities to assess the need for investment in rail, local roads, airports and ports.

  Transport Policy (Environmental Considerations)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to promote environmental considerations in transport policy.

  Mr. Channon
  Environmental considerations figure prominently in the development of transport policy. We have recently produced a booklet "Transport and the Environment", which describes our action in this area.

  In the key area of vehicle emission standards, my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside reached agreement last week with our European partners on much stricter limits for small cars. These will take mandatory effect from 1992.

  Volunteer Drivers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the EEC directive proposing to restrict the use of volunteer drivers in the use of vehicles for disabled people owned by charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are continuing to press the European Commission at every level to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on the drivers of minibuses. Formal discussion of the directive among member states is not expected to start before the autumn. The proposal would have the effect of reducing mobility without improving safety.

  Pollution
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he will take to reduce pollution from motor vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall be consulting soon on draft regulations to implement the standards which were agreed last year in the European Community for cars, buses and goods vehicles.

  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside reached agreement last week with our European partners on much stricter limits for small cars. These will take mandatory effect from 1992.

  Roads Programme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what detailed studies of the comparative cost advantages of road and rail access to major cities he carried out before announcing his latest roads programme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The relative market shares of road and rail mean that even a 50 per cent. increase in rail travel would be equivalent to less than 5 per cent. of road traffic. Against this background, the Government concluded that the way to tackle congestion on inter-urban roads is by widening existing roads and building new roads, as proposed in "Roads for Prosperity".

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much expenditure will have been increased since 1979 on the trunk road and motorway network when his new expanded roads programme is completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government are committed to the greatly expanded road programme announced in 332
  "Roads for Prosperity". This will require increased annual expenditure which will be determined in future public expenditure surveys. Capital expenditure on roads has increasd by some 60 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the planned current and capital spending on national and local roads for the next three years, at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures for current and capital expenditure on national and local roads in Great Britain for the period sought, at 1987–88 prices as shown in the table.

  £ million in 1987–88 prices

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  National roads

  Current

  117

  105

  112

  Capital

  1,138

  1,384

  1,384

  Local roads

  Current

  1,639

  1,627

  1,628

  Capital

  778

  738

  750

  Structural maintenance on national roads is classified as capital expenditure, but on local roads local authorities treat it largely as current expenditure.

  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the report prepared for his Department by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, entitled, "Study of Structural Options for Railway Privatisation."

  Mr. Channon
  No. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells was not asked to make recommendations or reach conclusions: its study for the Department and British Rail consists of a set of working papers which will form a basis for further studies. They contain commercially confidential information and would be unsuitable for publication.

  If a decision is taken to privatise British Rail, I shall publish the Government's conclusions in due course.

  Rail Transport
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the use of rail transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  We consider that travellers and freight consigners should generally be free to make their own choices between different means of transport, in the light of their relative cost and quality. The Government's chief concern is to ensure that each means of transport can operate efficiently, provide services linked closely to customer demand, and compete on equal terms.

  Safety Inspections
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in transferring safety inspections to regulatory bodies such as Lloyd's.

  Mr. Portillo
  Most statutory survey work has already been delegated to approved classification societies. The issue of delegation is kept under continuous review.

  Railways (Select Committee Report)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging him to seek a debate on the report of the Transport Select Committee on the future of the railways.

  Mr. Portillo
  The last report of the Transport Select Committee concerned with railways was on the financing of rail services, to which the Government responded in March 1988. We have received no representations for a debate on this report.

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the east London assessment study; and when he plans to publish the consultants' report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received representations on various aspects of this assessment study from the London local authority associations, the London planning advisory committee, individual local authorities, national organisations with an interest in transport matters, amenity groups, residents associations, various other bodies, and members of the public.

  The consultants are expected to report in the summer. Their report will be published as soon as possible.

  South-East Wales (Road Link)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the possibility of using the former Severn tunnel junction site to provide a road-rail link to south-east Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is currently examining, in consultation with local interests, possible sites for road-rail freight terminals in planning for future channel tunnel freight services. Its proposals will be set out in the plan which it has to produce by the end of this year under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Streetworks (Horne Report)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to introduce legislation on the Horne report on streetworks.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As soon as there is a suitable opportunity. Detailed proposals have been prepared and an opportunity is currently being given to interested parties to comment on them.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the expenditure in real terms on local authority street lighting in the last three financial years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures for current and capital expenditure by local authorities in Great Britain on public highways lighting at current prices are estimated to have been as follows:

  £million

  1986–87

  235

  1987–88

  230

  334
  Figures for expenditure in 1988–89 are not yet available.

  British Rail
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman and the board of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail on 11 July.

  London Underground (Cabling)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Regional Transport ascertaining when it is planned that all PVC cable on the London Underground will be replaced by low smoke zero halogen cable; and if he will provide a special grant from Her Majesty's Government to speed up this replacement programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Regional Transport to ascertain how many electricians are employed on the London Underground: how many are involved in fitting and maintaining cable underground; how many are fully working on the LSZH programme; and if he will provide a special grant from Her Majesty's Government to London Underground Ltd. for the employment of more electricians; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications for safety of potential toxicity and thick smoke resulting from a fire of (a) PVC cabling and(b) arcing cables, on the London Underground.

  Mr Portillo
  The assessment of safety on the Underground is in the first instance a matter for London Underground Ltd. I understand that the Underground stopped installing PVC cable some five years ago and that a replacement programme is under way.

  London Underground Ltd. and its consultants are now reconsidering the priorities within this programme, using hazard analysis techniques. The railway inspectorate is being kept fully informed.

  Arcing occurs when the cable insulation fails. The risk can be reduced by ensuring that the circuit breakers provided to detect arcing and switch off the power are maintained in the correct setting.

  The numbers and deployment of electricians are management matters for London Underground Ltd. It is for LUL to determine appropriate staffing levels in the light of LRT's statutory duty to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation. The costs involved will be taken into account in the annual discussions of LRT's financing requirements.

  Seat Belts (Children)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is proposing that children aged one to three years should be required to use adult seat belts where no more suitable restraint is available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This issue was discussed in our consultation document "Rear Seat Belt Wearing by Children". Most experts were against making it a legal requirement that very young children must be restrained in
  335
  adult belts when appropriate child restraints are not available. We will take this into account in preparing the regulations which we plan to bring before Parliament for approval very shortly.

  No responsible parents should wait for the law before properly restraining their children in the car.

  Commercial Vehicles (Emissions)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce new statutory standards based on the mass of emissions from commercial vehicles and backed by regular roadside checks.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall consult interested parties shortly on draft regulations to introduce the limits on the mass of gaseous emissions as set by Community directive 88/77/EEC. The Commission is expected to propose a second stage of limits later this year, which will also include a mass emission limit for particulates.

  The Department has over the past two years substantially increased its programme of roadside checks on the condition of heavy goods vehicles. This includes a check on smoke emissions. We are considering how future emission standards might most effectively be enforced.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the implementation of the recommendations made following the Manchester aircraft disaster in 1985 that seats in rows adjacent to the overwing emergency exit should be removed, and that the width in the gap in the forward galley partition should be increased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The statutory responsibility for the regulation of air transport safety lies with the Civil Aviation Authority. I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the chairman of the CAA and have asked him to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he follows in determining which journalists are invited to press briefings by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This depends upon matters under discussion.

  Offshore Supply Vessels
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to ensure that all offshore supply vessels operating in the British zone of the North sea under foreign flags are manned to levels compatible with those laid down by his Department for United Kingdom registered vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Manning levels on foreign flag offshore supply vessels are checked in the course of port state control inspections and confirmed to be in accordance with the safe manning certificate issued by the flag state.

  London Underground (Safety Management)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to tackle urgently the problem of lack of effective leadership in safety management of the London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 23 May at columns 502–3.

  Roads (Suffolk and Norfolk)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about roads in Suffolk and Norfolk following publication of the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of generally favourable representations, including some from my hon. Friend.

  A12 (Lowestoft-Ipswich)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable he envisages for workings on the A12 Lowestoft-Ipswich, following publication of the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have not yet set a timetable for these improvements. The first step is to appoint design agents. This will be done in the coming months. A roads report will be issued later this year, setting out the expanded road programme in detail.

  Teesport (Coal Discharge)
  Mr. Muffin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the country of origin of the coal discharged at Teesport by the MM Ave between 7 and 13 May; and at which port it was loaded.

  Mr. Portillo
  The origin of the Ave's cargo is not known, but I understand it was loaded at Maputo, Mozambique. The country of origin of a cargo is not a matter which is relevant to the responsibilities of the Department.

  Shetland (Fishing Boat-Submarine Collision)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about a collision between a Norwegian fishing boat and a French Agousta class submarine off Shetland on Monday 22 May; what inquiries have been carried out into the collision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  During the afternoon of 22 May Her Majesty's Coastguard rescue centre in Aberdeen received a report that the nets of the Norwegian trawler Strand Senior had been fouled by a French submarine. The Coastguard established that the trawler was in no danger.

  The reported position of the incident was 40 miles north north west of Unst and thus well outside United Kingdom territorial waters. Any further investigation is therefore for the French and Norwegian authorities.

  Fylde Coast (Easterly Bypass)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the consulting engineer's report on the proposed Fylde coast easterly bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Fylde coast easterly bypass is one of the options being considered for linking the M55 to the A585 at Norcross. We expect to receive the consultant's report in the autumn.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's total capital investment in air traffic control for the next decade.

  Mr. Channon
  The Civil Aviation Authority has said that it plans to invest approximately £600 million in air traffic control-related projects over the next decade.

  Vale of Rheidol Railway
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now give the net price received by British Rail for the sale of the Vale of Rheidol railway to the Brecon Mountain Railway Company.

  Mr. Portillo
  The price paid to British Rail for the sale of the Vale of Rheidol railway to the Brecon Mountain Railway Company was £306,500.

  Vehicle Excise Reminder Forms
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any plans to include private advertising material with the V11 vehicle excise duty forms issued by the DVLC in Swansea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  This is an idea that has been considered on a number of occasions. There are no present plans to take it further.

  Road Bridges (Strengthening)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be responsible for meeting the full costs incurred in strengthening Britain's road bridges in order to cope with the introduction of 40-tonne lorries.

  Mr. Channon
  The relevant highway authority.

  Exeter (Northern Bypass)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the proposal to construct a northern bypass for Exeter from the M5 originated in a proposal put to his Department by Devon county council as the highway .authority;

  (2) whether the proposal to construct a northern bypass for Exeter from the M5 is a scheme originating in his Department, without consultation with, or the approval of, Devon county council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A northern bypass of Exeter was first mooted when alternative routes for the M5 were under investigation in the mid-1960s. This work was updated before my right hon. Friend decided to include 338
  the scheme in "Roads for Prosperity". Devon county council passed a resolution last year requesting the addition of an Exeter northern bypass to the programme.

  Air Transport (Safety of Materials)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation his Department has made of the safety of air transport of(a) plutonium metal, (b) plutonium dioxide powder, (c) isotopes of enriched uranium and (d) radio isotopes for nuclear and industrial uses.

  Mr. Channon
  The transport of such materials has been studied by the advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials (ACTRAM). The results have been published in two reports: "The Transport of Radioactive Materials for Medical and Industrial Use" and "The Transport of Civil Plutonium by Air". Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library.

  Enriched uranium, being potentially less hazardous than plutonium, does not call for a separate study.

SCOTLAND

  Southern General Hospital (X-ray Department)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of staff of the X-ray department at the Southern general hospital have suffered health problems as a result of excessive chemical fumes arising out of the X-ray process.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the Greater Glasgow health board, but I understand from the hoard that following health screening, three members of staff were identified as having allergic sensitivity to the chemicals used in the X-ray processing.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations have been carried out to determine whether an excess of chemical fumes exists or existed in the X-ray department of the Southern general hospital; what were the findings; when they were made known to management; what recommendations were made; and what remedial action has been taken.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the Greater Glasgow health board, but I understand from the board that in May and December 1988 two reports on the emission of chemical fumes in X-ray departments were produced by the board's occupational health department and by the Health and Safety Executive respectively. On both occasions the concentrations in the atmosphere of the substances measured were found to be well within the current occupational exposure limits. As a result of its own investigations and the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive, a number of measures including better ventilation have been introduced by the health board to improve the working conditions in the departments concerned.

  Medical Education and Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has given to the observations and criticisms of the Medical Research Council on the White Paper, "Working for Patients", regarding medical(a) education and (b) research in Scotland.
  339
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The comments of the Medical Research Council on the White Paper have been acknowledged and are being considered along with the many responses received from other bodies. They will be taken into account in the implementation of the White Paper proposals in Scotland.

  Chlorine
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding levels of chlorine in public water supplies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed information on levels of chlorine in public water supplies in Scotland is not held centrally. Water put into supply normally has a level of residual chlorine of 0·1–0·5 mg per litre according to circumstances.

  Effluent Standards
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those applications made to him in the current year by water authorities for the lowering of effluent standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no applications from the islands councils for a lowering of standards for their discharges during the current year. On the mainland, standards are set by the river purification boards which are responsible for giving consents to discharge effluent in their areas.

  Guest Houses (Rating)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many guest houses in(a) Scotland and (b) Argyll and Bute will be liable to pay both non-domestic rates and the personal community charge for everyone who lives on the premises.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally. Where, however a person is solely or mainly resident in premises which are subject to non-domestic rates, there is a reduction in the valuation for rating of the property to take account of this.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's estimate of the average difference for owners of guest houses in Scotland between the previous rating system and the current system whereby owners of guest houses catering for more than six people are liable to pay both non-domestic rates and the personal community charge for everyone living on the premises.

  Mr. Lang
  The information that would be required to carry out an estimate of the kind envisaged by the hon. Member is not held centrally.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider exempting from liability for the standard community charge accommodation which is unoccupied and where the person who would otherwise be liable for payment is registered elsewhere for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of education.

  Mr. Lang
  No. Students in this position and who cannot reasonably be expected to give up their homes on 340
  moving to another area for educational purposes may be eligible for a two homes allowance which is payable by the Scottish Education Department as an addition to the student grant.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table for each district council in Scotland of the total yield of the community charge payment by the districts to the region in the current financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures given in the table are the estimated yield in 1989–90 to the relevant regional councils of community charge payments made by residents and standard community charge payers within each of the districts of Scotland.

  Estimated Yield of Regional Community Charge

  Districts

  £000

  Berwickshire

  2,565

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  4,428

  Roxburgh

  4,780

  Tweeddale

  2,026

  Clackmannan

  6,825

  Falkirk

  20,974

  Stirling

  11,695

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4,981

  Nithsdale

  7,778

  Stewartry

  3,368

  Wigtown

  4,177

  Dunfermline

  20,924

  Kirkcaldy

  24,190

  North East Fife

  11,119

  Aberdeen City

  30,134

  Banff and Buchan

  11,702

  Gordon

  9,702

  Kincardine and Deeside

  6,588

  Moray

  12,083

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1,677

  Caithness

  3,589

  Inverness

  8,164

  Lochaber

  2,630

  Nairn

  1,371

  Ross and Cromarty

  6,377

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,711

  Sutherland

  1,958

  East Lothian

  18,304

  Edinburgh City

  95,541

  Midlothian

  17,236

  West Lothian

  29,143

  Argyll and Bute

  10,267

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  6,057

  Clydebank

  7,314

  Clydesdale

  8,585

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  8,862

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  6,425

  Cunninghame

  20,697

  Dumbarton

  11,597

  East Kilbride

  12,258

  Eastwood

  8,565

  Glasgow City

  106,491

  Hamilton

  15,505

  Inverclyde

  14,334

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  11,935

  Kyle and Carrick

  17,250

  Monklands

  15,027

  Motherwell

  21,616

  Renfrew

  29,652

  Strathkelvin

  12,857

  Angus

  15,427

  Dundee City

  28,484

  Perth and Kinross

  20,975

  Total District

  797,922

  Note: The estimated figures do not take account of Community Water Charges.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, further to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 515, he will seek and evaluate estimates from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation on the impact on Scottish fleet costs in a full year of a 5 per cent. interest rate rise.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have already noted the estimate of £7·5 million which the hon. Member has quoted and which may have been provided by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. As I indicated previously, many elements affect the impact of individual cost charges on overall profitability. My noble Friend the Minister of State will meet representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation tomorrow to discuss a paper which the federation submitted to him.

  Mrs. Sinclair (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which media outlets were notified by the Scottish Office of the home visit by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to Mrs. Sinclair on Sunday 14 May; what advance notice of press involvement was given to Mrs. Sinclair; and what were the costs to public funds.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish information office arranged for media representatives to be told of the visit of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and education to the home of Mrs. Margaret Sinclair and issued a press statement on my hon. Friend's behalf. The statement was sent to the Glasgow Herald, Scotsman, the Daily Record, the Scottish Daily Express, the Aberdeen Press and Journal, the Dundee Courier, Scottish Television, the BBC, Radio Forth and Radio Clyde.

  No advance notice of press involvement was given to Mrs. Sinclair.

  The total cost to public funds is estimated at approximately £40.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to respond to the letter of 19 April from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye on matters of concern to shellfish growers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Minister of State responded on 5 June to the letter of 19 April from the hon. Member on matters of concern to shellfish growers.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the Property Services Agency policy whereby 1 per cent. of the capital expenditure on major building projects is devoted to an arts involvement to include the capital programmes of local authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  No. It is for local authorities to determine their expenditure priorities within the resources my right hon. and learned Friend makes available to them.

  Regions (Rates)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total yield from the rate payment to the regions for the last financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated total rate income 1988–89

  £ million

  Borders

  22·7

  Central

  86·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35·9

  Fife

  124·8

  Grampian

  156·9

  Highland

  60·0

  Lothian

  290·4

  Strathclyde

  740·0

  Tayside

  114·2

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  9·1

  Shetland

  50·4

  Western Isles

  6·7

  Total regions and islands

  1,697·2

  Notes:

  1. Rate income is less Domestic Rate Relief.

  2. Estimated figures calculated using actual penny rate products, rateable values and rate poundages from "Rating Review".

  3. Figures exclude rates collected by the Regions on behalf of the District Councils.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends publishing a list of hospitals and other medical units that have expressed an interest in becoming self governing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards in Scotland have not yet been asked to invite from hospitals and other units expressions of interest in self-governing status. I shall be discussing this with health board chairmen later this month. I then intend to make rapid progress in identifying those hospitals and so on that wish to consider becoming self-governing. In the meantime, I have received a number of informal expressions of interest.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to receive an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Cambridge.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: The Congregation will take place on Thursday, 15th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday, 15th June.

Parking Restrictions: Business Vehicles
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce a scheme for the issue of general passes to small businesses, enabling their vehicles making unscheduled calls to park without hindrance.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the regulation of parking and waiting is a matter for local highway authorities. They can at present exempt business vehicles from normal parking and waiting restrictions for the purpose of loading and unloading. They also have powers to introduce designated business parking schemes.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Most of the people who are affected by parking regulations are those in the service industries—electricians, plumbers and so on. They can obtain permission from police districts but often they have to answer emergency calls from outside those districts. How are they to avoid fines and clamping, which at the moment beset them, in order to carry out their emergency calls properly and efficiently?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, parking for business users and service industries has been discussed with the local authority associations and the police. I am advised that the police look sympathetically on the type of person whom the noble Marquess described. However, the general response has been that to grant exemptions to one class of road user would inevitably lead to similar requests from other sections of the motoring public.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that if there was a general lifting of regulations to provide for such a facility it would make nonsense of the fact that we are still waiting,
1122
after nearly four years, for legislation on the Home Report, dealing with street works which create congestion in busy thoroughfares?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, but the last part of the noble Lord's question is not absolutely relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. However, I agree entirely with the noble Lord that it is essential that exemptions are kept to a minimum if parking controls are to be effective. Difficulties are envisaged over enforcement and there is scope for abuse.

Rose Theatre Remains: Preservation
2.39 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the preservation and display of the Rose Theatre excavations at the end of the agreed delay in development of "up to one month" from 15th May.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the developers have voluntarily redesigned their scheme at a cost of some £10 million so as to preserve the remains of the Rose Theatre, and to enable public display once the new office building is complete. It is now for the private sector to bring forward a workable scheme for ensuring that public display.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which was very much what I had been expecting. Is the noble Lord aware that the proposed solution put forward by the developers, which involves driving six piles extremely close to the foundations of the theatre through unexcavated areas, gives rise to great concern among archaeologists working on the site and all those who have specialised knowledge of the site? Is he aware that there are other solutions which would involve less damage and which would not unduly delay development, such as the scheme suggested by Ove Arup, commissioned by the Theatres Trust?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the developers are having archaeological investigation carried out into the adjacent areas which would be affected by the piling; and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is well aware that the piling avoids the known theatre perimeter. English Heritage is supervising it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the piling will take place 18 inches away from the known area of the theatre in unexcavated areas, and that there is therefore a grave risk of damage of an irreparable variety?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I find it difficult to go further. There will be archaeological investigation which the developers have requested. It is worth remembering that the site has actually managed to survive, having had a building completely cover it in the 1950s.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in accepting what the noble Lord said, I should like to make the following point. He will agree that the discovery of an important source of the British theatre is not to be put lightly on one side. While the developers have, from their point of view, been reasonable in the matter, there are differences of view as to whether the proposal which has been put forward is satisfactory. In the circumstances, would it not be a good idea to refer the matter to the Theatres Trust? That is a body created by Parliament for such a purpose. Its president is the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the chairman is Sir David Crouch. It is a reputable body representing a wide range of opinion which I believe could come forward with a proposal which would be acceptable to both sides.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the developers have gone a great deal of the way to answering the problems raised by the discovery of the site. I should have explained earlier that the proposal envisaged will completely cover the site giving a clear space above it of about 22 feet. It will have a separate entrance from the entrance to the office building. I do not think anyone can say that that is not a commitment to preserving this important site.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not the case that in this country we deal with our archaeological remains, no matter how important they are, in a very haphazard and hand-to-mouth way? Does the Minister not agree that it would be a good idea for the planning process to be strengthened to the extent that it ensures that sites are evaluated? Does he not further agree that as regards those that have any archaeological interest at all, proposals should be made on the basis of those evaluations? The evaluation should also include a short survey before planning consent is given. Does the Minister not agree that such a procedure would entail greater ease of operation for the developer, and that the preservation and conservation of sites could be achieved without having to go through all the hassle that has taken place with the Rose Theatre? It does not appear that, whatever the decision regarding the Rose Theatre, it will be entirely satisfactory all round.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe I can be entirely truthful in saying that, whatever the result, it will not be entirely satisfactory to everyone involved in this affair.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, God Almighty has decreed that we age, die, crumble away, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Does the Minister not agree that we cannot preserve the whole of the past as a memorial thereof? What really matters is that we should get proper engineering drawings of what the Rose Theatre was, with samples of the materials of construction, and that they should be preserved in a museum.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to clarify one point. Is the Minister aware that the piles that are to be driven very close to the theatre will go through
1124
areas that have not been excavated? Does he not agree that it will be a destructive form of archaeology that will be allowed for a very short period before the piles are driven? It is obvious that the structures that may well be there will not be there after the piles have been put into position. Does the Minister not agree that there are other ways of carrying out this work that would preserve the whole site?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said earlier, the developers have gone a great way towards being as helpful as possible on the site. As I said in an earlier reply, preceding the piling the developers will have archaeologists, under the supervision of English Heritage, to investigate what is down there.

EC Lingua Scheme
2.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans to participate in the European Communities Lingua scheme.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government will play their due part in the implementation of the Lingua programme in the form agreed by Community education Ministers on 22nd May. They will also encourage education institutions, businesses and other eligible organisations in the United Kingdom to make full use of the opportunities offered by the programme for the development of foreign language skills.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House how he believes that the Lingua programme as it now is can help to improve the appalling record that we have in the teaching of modern languages in our schools? In France 82 per cent. of school leavers and in Germany 91 per cent. of school leavers have studied English. In this country 41 per cent. have studied French, and 11 per cent. have studied German.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there are more people speaking English in the world than French or German. I believe that to be a truth. The decision text refers to encouraging all citizens to acquire a working knowledge of foreign languages in place of an earlier reference to two foreign languages. The Government certainly hope to see a growing number of people in the United Kingdom able to communicate in more than one foreign language; but they are not prepared to see an implied commitment to such a policy enshrined in Community legislation.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is seriously the view of the Government (as the beginning of the noble Viscount's last reply seemed to indicate) that because we are fortunate enough in this country, with the advantage of the United States in this regard as an ally, to have triumphed over French as a world language, it is reasonable to sit back and say: everybody should speak English and we shall do nothing about speaking any other languages?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I did not say that everyone should speak English. I said that English is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. The Government also must have regard both to the United Kingdom's wider trading interests and to the large number of languages spoken by minority groups within the United Kingdom population. Therefore the Government would not in any case be willing to constrain their policy by reference to the definition of foreign languages employed in the Lingua programme.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, irrespective of percentages and the numbers of people with English as their cradle or second language, does my noble friend not agree that the standards of performance achieved in foreign languages in English (and I daresay Scottish) schools is lamentably low? Does the Minister not agree that we need to improve the standards to a very great extent in order to sell our goods and services abroad?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely. The whole purpose of the Education Reform Act in this direction is to improve education in foreign languages.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the second most widely spoken international language in the world is Spanish? Is he further aware that a great deal of work has been undertaken by the Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Council—which was, incidentally, founded by my noble friend's father—to promote the teaching of Spanish and Portuguese? Will the Government recognise that this work, and the teaching of these languages, is of vital importance?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Government not agree that it is unfortunate that the national curriculum lays down that there should be one language taught, and that the teaching of it shall not start until the age of 11; whereas most people would believe that the sooner one starts a foreign language, the better?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government's objective on agreeing to the Lingua programme was to distinguish vocational education, and education after the age of 16, from general school education. That has been achieved.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that from the point of view of the national interest it might well be better if young people were encouraged to learn Japanese, Mandarin, Russian or Arabic in preference to Danish, Flemish or modern Greek, or even in preference to French, German or Italian, desirable though the latter undoubtedly are from a purely cultural point of view?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have before me Schedule 2, which was issued by the department quite recently, which shows that Japanese, Punjabi, Russian, Turkish, Urdu, Hindi, Hebrew, Gujerati,
1126
Chinese, Bengali and Arabic are all available if the school in question has a foundation subject in one of the other languages.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wonder——
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is there not——
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we cannot all speak at once. Let us try the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, first.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is there not a national phobia about foreign languages as is evidenced by the fact that the moment a foreign statesman comes on radio or television and tries to say a few words in his own language it is immediately smothered by a translator? Does not the same thing apply in reverse? When the Queen or the Queen Mother attempt to say a few words in French immediately they are drowned by the translator. Will the noble Viscount say something to his friends in radio and television about this?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think the short answer is Oui and Ja.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, will my noble friend kindly expand on his reply to the first supplementary question? He said that it was the Government's view that it was not appropriate for British citizens to learn to speak more than one foreign language.
Viscount Davidson: I did not say that, my Lords. I said that under the Lingua scheme all languages are available, but that they are now distinguished, for vocational education and education after the age of 16, from general school education. General school education is a different matter from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in connection with the Lingua scheme it has been reported that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that the European Commission has no locus standi on educational matters? Is it the Government's view that the Commission has no locus standi on education matters? Is that a correct interpretation of the Treaty of Rome?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, it is not a correct interpretation. The Government do not oppose the idea of people learning two languages in appropriate circumstances, but they were not prepared to have the Community saying that this should be so, far less requiring that those languages should be Community languages.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that not only is our standard of foreign language speaking deplorable, but our standard of English speaking is equally deplorable? Is not the best way of learning good English to study comparative grammar in languages such as Latin, Greek, and so on?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Earl.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, while at a pinch one can understand the objection to the EC directive that three languages should be taught in our schools, what conceivable reason can there be for an objection to exchange visits, partially funded by the Lingua scheme, between member countries?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have not heard of any objection to school exchanges. When they are properly planned to build on the curriculum they can contribute a great deal. But we do not need the Community to organise our school exchanges for us. Exchanges are much better arranged on a bilateral basis, and we have a flourishing and expanding programme of exchanges with a growing number of countries. I hope that that will be one way in which our knowledge of foreign languages is expanded.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is not the real objection to the scheme that it is regarded as an interference with our sovereign rights?
Viscount Davidson: That is the first time I have heard that suggestion, my Lords.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that those of us who were taught to learn English did not find the task too difficult?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his brilliant English.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it not true that this Government more than all their predecessors have done more for the teaching of languages in schools by making a foreign language compulsory in the curriculum? This does not preclude the learning of a second language. Would it not be better to concentrate energies on securing more teachers of foreign languages and improving the teaching of foreign languages?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up my first supplementary question about how the Lingua programme will benefit those in schools now. Is the Minister aware that according to DES figures we shall be short of 2,500 modern language teachers by 1995? How will this be put right so that even one modern language can be taught?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should think that 1992 will help to a considerable extent in reducing the shortage of foreign language teachers.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it has been remarkably demonstrated in a number of our primary schools that children of a primary school age have no difficulty in acquiring an extraordinary facility with two foreign languages? Is it not a terrible pity to waste that incipient knowledge by not carrying it on in the secondary stage for all our young people?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all things are learnt much better at a young age than they are learnt later on in life. It might interest the House to know that I was able to speak French before I could speak English.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, in pursuance of the point just raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt, is the Minister aware that this is because the power of mimicry, which is of paramount importance in language learning, is at its peak at primary school age and later is less good?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, having just had a quick look at the original Question on the Order Paper, I am afraid I have to say that that question has moved a long way from it.

Greenhouse Effect: Monitoring
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the greenhouse effect is monitored daily by any permanent international organisation, and, if not, whether they will propose that it should be.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I apologise if this is a somewhat longer Answer than usual. Detection of the greenhouse effect, which is a long-term phenomenon, will depend on careful statistical analysis of accumulated data of many kinds. One example is the measurement of sea surface temperatures made hourly around the world by national meteorological services co-ordinated by the World Meteorological Organisation. The concentrations of the principal greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and CFCs are continuously monitored by several countries in a co-ordinated programme, including a DoE-supported monitoring site in Ireland measuring methane and CFCs.
Scientists are currently evaluating other elements such as sea ice extent and changes in glaciers. It is expected that in its report to the second world climate conference in 1990 the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, whose science working group is chaired by the Director General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, will include an assessment of relevant monitoring options.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of that comprehensive Answer and other serious features, would it not be proper for the Government to bring this matter on to the floor of the General Assembly of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that it will get there in any case, but I can assure the noble Lord and the House that I brought it to the attention of the United Nations environment programme in Nairobi three weeks ago.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is not my noble friend aware that the recent announcement of the commissioning of a second Antarctic research vessel to gather information in this context is particularly welcome?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. One of the great unknowns is the Antarctic. Developments there could have an enormous effect on climate change, and therefore we need further research.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are glad to hear of the Government's interest in monitoring the greenhouse effect. Will the noble Earl add to that by urging his governmental colleagues in the Department of Energy not to overturn the amendment carried by your Lordships at the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill to safeguard the conservation of energy, which is the prime way of preventing the greenhouse effect?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is one of the ways; however, it is not necessarily the prime way. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Energy Efficiency Office has done, is doing and will continue to do a tremendous job.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do not coal-burning power stations have an unfortunate effect on this matter and should not we therefore be aiming to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the coal-burning power stations as and when economic circumstances permit?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords. Any combustion of a fossil fuel adds to the problem, and coal is worse in that respect than either oil or natural gas. As my noble friend will be aware, we have a rather ridiculous European directive which limits the amount of gas we can burn in large combustion plants.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House the reason for the Government's apparent reluctance to contribute to an international fund for the purposes of examining the greenhouse effect? I understand that the idea of such a fund is supported by the United Nations environment programme, to which he has referred, and also by the European Community. However, it appears that the Government are not prepared to support it. Can the noble Earl explain why?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure to which fund the noble Baroness is referring. However, I can assure the House that if only other governments would commit the same amount of money to research as has this country—we have the only global climate monitoring station outside the United States—we might then see a little more international effort.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that during the course of my lifetime the glaciers have advanced and retreated about four times and that there is therefore no need to adopt planning stations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right; indeed, I can confirm that even before he was born the same thing was happening. Some of your Lordships will be aware that when my ancestors, the Vikings, discovered Greenland, it was in fact green.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his reply to me the noble Earl referred to the Energy Efficiency Office. Will he be good enough to confirm to the House that the budget of the office has been maintained in real terms and that it will be maintained?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Energy Efficiency Office's budget this year is over £15 million. It has already generated a high level of awareness through a major publicity campaign and it is right that that effort should now be directed more specifically because the effect of that campaign has already become apparent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if I understood the noble Earl correctly, it would appear that the Government have commenced making recommendations to the United Nations. However, can he tell the House whether they will be pursuing the initial move they made, and if so, when?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the House will be aware, Sir Crispin Tickell made a major speech to the United Nations explaining the Government's view and their wish for a global climate convention. We shall take every opportunity to raise the matter. Indeed, I discussed it last week in Luxembourg with the environment Ministers. It will be raised again at the United Nations environment programme and also at the world climate conference next year.

Business
3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for one hour and that during the adjournment the Committee stage of the Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill and the Report stage of the Licensing (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Midland Metro Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Water Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 15 [Modification by agreement]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 16, line 47, after ("above;") insert—
("() the modification is a modification of a provision of the appointment which relates to the disposal of, or of interests or rights in or over, a company's protected land and is stated in the appointment to be a provision which cannot be modified;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Modification following report]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 20, line 29, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 30 and insert ("provisions of a company's appointment under this Chapter which—

(a) are contained in that appointment for the purposes of section 12(2)(c) above; or

(b) being provisions relating to the disposal of, or of interests or rights in or over, a company's protected land, are stated in the appointment to be provisions which cannot be modified.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Modification by order under other enactments]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 21, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert ("provisions of a company's appointment under this Chapter which—

(a) are contained in that appointment for the purposes of section 12(2)(c) above; or

(b) being provisions relating to the disposal of, or of interests or rights in or over, a company's protected land, are stated in the appointment to be provisions which cannot be modified.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders for securing compliance with certain provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 102ZA:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (5) and (5A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 102ZA I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 102ZC and 102ZD. Having dealt at some length with the issue of drinking water, the House has now given considerable and necessary attention to the question of the discharge of sewage. The concern which is expressed in these amendments relates to the provisions of Clause 20 and enforcement orders as regards river water and
1132
drinking water, and also to sewage quality and the degree of enforcement which is to be provided.
In Committee the Government introduced amendments to subsection (5) of Clause 20 which it was claimed—and I have no reason to deny it—met the immediate requirements of the European Commission that our legislation should be in conformity with European directives. We have looked most closely at subsection (5), as amended, and we still feel, whatever the European Commission may say, that the subsection is seriously defective and that further amendments are required. That is the purpose of this series of amendments.
The difficulty is that the director and the Secretary of State are not required under the Bill as drafted to make orders in relation to the sewerage undertaking (either final or provisional orders) if they are satisfied that the contraventions were trivial—we have been over that issue and I do not propose to repeat the argument—or that the company has given and is complying with an undertaking to take all such steps as appears to it to be appropriate. I am summarising the position, but I hope not inaccurately.
In effect that means that the Secretary of State and the director are saying to those who are discharging sewage in excess of the consents which have been granted, that provided they start to take remedial measures no order will be enforced against them, whether it be a final or a provisional order. That is in circumstances where it is already clear that very substantial investment programmes will be required by the sewerage undertakings if we are to secure that the quality of sewage discharge is increased to an acceptable level.
That is by no means a theoretical point. At the opening of the process of privatisation, the Secretary of State invited the sewerage undertakings to make application to him if they wished to be considered for consents to discharge sewage which was worse than the prescribed quality. The process is not complete, but we undersand that already up to 1,000 sewerage works have been the subject of such applications. Moreover, it is clear that the process of putting right the discharge from sewerage works will take a very long time, even if such work were to start straight away, and there is no indication of that.
The Water Authorities' Association is so concerned about the time it will take, and the cost which will be incurred, to bring sewage discharges up to an acceptable level that it has already started to complain about the standards which undertakers may ultimately be required to achieve. An article appearing in today's edition of the Financial Times, which is certainly from internal evidence inspired by the assocation and its members, says that the association has approached the Secretary of State seeking an independent inquiry into the technical needs of the industry, in an attempt to develop a more realistic framework for investment. We can be clear what "more realistic" means: it means a smaller programme for investment. The Water Authorities' Assocation is already starting to claim that, as it says, there is a bandwagon under way, fuelled by European Commission directives, political and

1133
media pressures, and special interest environmental lobby groups, which is getting out of control. A dreadful thought!
I have not heard the Minister say anything like that. I hope that when he replies to the amendment he will take the opportunity to repudiate such claims. I know that he is engaged in almost daily negotiations with the European Community. I know that he is carrying out those negotiations in good faith. It would be appropriate if he took the opportunity of this afternoon's debate to make it clear that the Government do not share the view expressed on behalf of the Water Authorities' Association that the political and media pressures and the activities of the special interest environmental lobby groups are getting out of control. The water authorities argue that many of the improvements demanded are of dubious benefit and that the cost of achieving them could be out of all proportion to the resulting benefits. The association refers in particular to the kind of tests that would be required with regard to the acceptability of the treatment. The example that it gives is that sewage treatment works must pass all sample tests and not just receive a suitably high average.
What is happening is clear. The considerable public relations effort and financial resources of the Water Authorities' Association are being bent towards the objective of ensuring that not only do we not start to bring our sewage discharges up to an acceptable level, but we never achieve the acceptable level laid down by the European Community. That is why we have to return to the issue of enforcement and the inadequacy of Clause 20(5).
It is a curious idea—is it not?—that the Government should say that they want to have investment programmes to improve sewage treatment; but that while those investment programmes are under way, no action should be taken by government in anticipation of any possible failure of them.
If we are to be convinced that the Government mean business with regard to the improvement of the quality of discharges, we need to know, first, what timetable is to be imposed; and, secondly, what is to be done about apparent compliance—in other words, compliance which takes the first steps, but which does not involve any significant level of investment and is designed merely to put off legal action rather than to achieve improvement. Above all, how is the improvement of quality to be guaranteed if advance notice has been given by government, as it is given by the clause as at present drafted, that no enforcement action will be taken?
I am well aware that the subsection opens with the phrase:
"neither the Secretary of State nor the Director shall be required to make"
an order. I am conscious that means that there is a possibility that, despite the provisions of the subsection, the Secretary of State or the director could make an order.
As drafted, the subsection remains an open invitation to those who wish to lower the ultimate standards of sewage discharge and those who wish
1134
to approach acceptable standards at as slow a pace as possible, to take advantage of the subsection; to make merely token improvements; to make a token start to the investment programme; and, thereby, to avoid the enforcement procedures which are so necessary if we are to achieve the improvement in the quality of the discharge from our sewage works.
We are pushing a little further in the direction in which we know the Government recognise that they are forced to go. The regulatory procedures are laid down in the Bill. They have gone some way towards reassuring those who are concerned about standards. We do not believe that they go far enough. The amendments are therefore necessary to complete the process. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, I wonder whether his amendment would achieve what he is aiming for. I shall briefly go through it. It is assumed under subsection (5) that the Secretary of State desires to make an order and that under paragraph (b) the company has given an undertaking that it will not breach its discharge consent level. From reading Section 5(A) in Amendment No. 102ZD, which says:
"Nothing in subsection (5)(b) above shall apply in respect of any sewage treatment works which is in breach of its discharge consent level",
I have a feeling that that will allow the undertaker to get out of it. I am not happy with the wording.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it is always interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He speaks with such cogency that I feel more than three-quarters persuaded before I start. I felt strongly that my noble friend the Minister should respond immediately and say, "Yes, of course, we should remove the subsection and the flexibility". I wonder sometime when we are discussing the problems of reducing pollution how much noble Lords can visualise what happens. I was going to say "on the ground", but it is more in the industrial premises which discharge the main toxic effluents into the local sewage works. There are the problems as the effluent comes in, changing perhaps more often than it should because the industrial process sometimes changes and therefore presents different problems for the treatment process in the sewage treatment works. I am referring to the type of problems that the water authorities now—and the water companies in the future—have to contend with. There is the problem of what happens when the final effluent arrives in the river, and all the problems of sufficiently monitoring conditions as they change.
While we all want standards of perfection, we are dealing with a world on the river, as the effluents are discharged, where variation is inevitable. The volume of flow of the river varies from one part of the year to another. In the summer—the dry time such as now—it may be only half of what it is at other times. We are dealing with a whole range of variables. To aim for absolute standards of

1135
perfection, which would be desirable if they were possible, is not realistic.
If I said to Senor Carlo Ripa Di Meana, the EC Commissioner for these matters, "How do you manage to do this in Italy with your sewage works?", I should be interested to hear his answer. I am certain that his sewage works in Italy do not deal with it. Many of his sewage works carry out no treatment at all. The ones that discharge into the sea do not. I have swum through many such discharges and what I have seen makes it clear to me that there is no treatment of any kind. Italy however is rather an extreme case.
I agree that when we come to a country such as Holland, it is outstandingly efficient. On the other hand, Holland is partially responsible for the Rhine, and look at what flows by there. We cannot look for standards of perfection. There must be an element of flexibility. As I see it, that is what my noble friend is trying to achieve in subsection (5). If it were removed, I think he would be asking the authorities as they are now and the companies of the future to try to achieve the impossible.
I support my noble friend and I hope that he will say that, while he sympathises with the pressure being put on him by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in practice we must try to look at the practicable realities of the situation and a measure of flexibility is desirable. Certainly he and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State will keep the pressure on undertakers always to keep improving, but variability will still be inevitable. Therefore he must have this measure of flexibility. I hope that that is what my noble friend will say.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Clause 20 is very important. It is the clause which enables enforcement of the Bill's provisions. It is therefore right and realistic that, as regards subsection (5), a degree of flexibility is introduced, as has been so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Nugent who speaks with such great experience of these problems, especially with regard to rivers.
I looked at the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and which we have been discussing. Like my noble friend Lord Balfour, I was rather puzzled as to whether they achieved their object. But to the extent that they do achieve their object, the difficulty is that they impose absolute stringency without any regard at all for changing circumstances and special conditions which demand a degree of flexibility.
The background to all this, as I understand it, is this. Unfortunately, our country has during our lifetime almost continuously been backward in keeping up to date with the sewage treatment requirements of a growing population, with ever higher standards of living. One does not wish to make too many party points on the Bill because it is essentially a Bill of great public interest and application. However, I must point out that in the late 1970s the then Labour Government made a rather serious cutback in the public funds provided for new sewage treatment works. Although the
1136
present Government have improved the position a good deal, I do not know that we have ever caught up. I doubt that we have.
Surely the reality of the situation is that we should do what is proposed in subsection (5) and say that when the company concerned,
"has given, and is complying with, an undertaking to take"
the necessary steps then a little patience should be exerted by the Secretary of State and the enforcement should not be applied so stringently.
However if these amendments—especially the last one, Amendment No. 102ZD concerning the new subsection (5A)—were to be made to the Bill, quite frankly it would create an impossible position in which the company concerned, the sewerage undertaker, was doing all that it was required to do but nevertheless because of climatic or other circumstances it was unable to reach perfection. In those circumstances, for the Secretary of State to be obliged to use the enforcement provisions is not sensible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, certainly echoes the wishes of the whole House and the public when he speaks of his concern to reduce pollution in the treatment of sewage. Therefore on that point there is no disagreement whatever. What we are talking about is the means by which we achieve those ends. My noble friend Lord Renton has already referred to this. It seems to me that if one addresses the task which the water companies have to undertake—the task of compensating for neglect—it is probably fair to say that there has been neglect by all parties, but particularly during the latter part of the 1970s when the Labour Government made cuts in this very area of the reduction of pollution.
However if one looks at subsection (5)(b) it seems to me also that it is absolutely essential—and the public has a right to expect, and certainly those of us supporting the Bill also expect—that there should be a steady, sustained improvement towards meeting the standards. If I did not misunderstand the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he talked about a possible licence to lower standards. I shall not be opposing the amendment on that ground; I believe that there has to be continued improvement in meeting the new standards. Clause 20(5)(b) says that the Secretary of State or the Director has to be satisfied:
"that the company has given, and is complying with, an undertaking to take all such steps as it appears to him … to be appropriate"
in order to continue the improvement. I think that for the first time ever we have properly prescribed standards and an enforcement agency to see that those improvements are brought about. We are in the business of achieving the art of the possible.
We might make the task impossible, both financially, because it is the people who have to pay, and technically, because some of the jobs cannot be achieved technically, without giving some period for that improvement. We should go for the art of the possible and, as soon as possible and as far as is practicable, we should reach the state where we shall not be permitting any breach of the standards.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, logistically as well as possibly, a point to do with putting everything to rights straight away—which is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to do—is that people have been pleading for flexibility and a little time. I believe it would be quite impossible logistically to get everything in order straight away. Therefore flexibility will be a necessity. There are not sufficient mechanics, management, machinery or what-have-you to accomplish the job.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in responding to the amendment I am sure it would be a help to the House if I were first to sketch the background in two separate and important respects. The first concerns the general sewerage duties of the undertakers; and the second concerns the Government's policies for dealing with the long-standing problem of poor performance by a proportion of our sewage treatment works.
I turn first to the pattern of legal duties which under this Bill we shall impose upon the sewerage undertakers. Under Clause 67(1)(b), the sewerage undertakers are to have a general duty to make provision, inter alia,
"for effectually dealing, by means of sewage disposal works or otherwise, with the contents of those sewers".
This is the lynch-pin of the Government's sewerage policies and the key mechanism for securing that in the future the responsible bodies achieve and maintain satisfactory overall standards in the performance of their sewerage and sewage disposal function. It is of course a duty subject to the full enforcement powers of the Bill in Clause 20 and elsewhere. Accordingly the protection provided by the improvement programmes referred to in Clause 20(5)(b) are open to them here as on other matters.
But sitting alongside this, to secure proper performance of sewerage functions, there are of course the full provisions of the criminal law, not only re-enacted but extended in Part III, concerning the pollution of water and in particular the proper regulation of discharges of trade and sewage effluent to water. Many might feel that this imposed on the undertakers a sort of double jeopardy. They are liable to the criminal law for the proper quality of discharges from each of their sewage treatment works. But alongside this they also have a statutory duty for the overall proper performance of their sewage disposal functions.
I have to tell the House that this is a formidable combination, and we reflected long and hard whether this degree of double jeopardy was not in fact too onerous. But we attach great importance to the proper control and performance of sewage treatment operations, and we accordingly concluded that it was appropriate. The undertaker will have to achieve an appropriate level of overall performance. This, then, is the first element in the picture which the House should have in mind in making a judgment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The second element is the history of sewage treatment and disposal. I first preface my arguments with two special comments which are not special
1138
pleading. First, let no one assume that the performance of sewage treatment and disposal in this country is in some way uniquely bad. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford referred to the performance of some other countries. In international terms our performance is good. After all, more householders are connected to mains sewerage than elsewhere in Europe; and we treat more of that sewage before disposal than elsewhere. My second remark, in fairness to all those now and in the past involved in this undertaking of fundamental importance to the health of the community, is that control and regulation here is subject to particular difficulty and unpredictability. It is the prey of new housing and other development pressures to which it must respond. And when problems arise, a works cannot simply be closed down. All aqueous effluents involve difficult monitoring and control problems, but general sewerage effluents involve more than any other.
That is the background against which the figures quoted so often by the Opposition must be seen. It is a fact that about 20 per cent. of discharges from treatment works have recently failed to reach their consents standards. My noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Blatch reminded us of the reasons for that. That is not acceptable, and the Government are doing a great deal to tackle the problem, as I shall describe later. But there are also points that the House must bear in mind.
First, 20 per cent. is an outside figure. Some works may have failed to comply only very marginally. Again my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford gave some reasons for that; for example, the results of seasonal variations. Secondly, some proportion of the non-compliance is due to infringement of licences by industrial concerns making disposals to sewers, and for which the law rightly says the authority has no responsibility or liability. Thirdly, some proportion is due to unforeseeable accidents; for example, works breaking down, and so on. Accidents should not happen, but it is beyond the gift of man entirely to prevent them.
There is a further consideration which this House must not lose from sight. Aggregate data on the performance of treatment works has only been available for the past three years as a result of the stronger control and administration procedures introduced by this Government when they implemented the Control of Pollution Act. When information is published for the first time, it is easy to assume that in the years before the picture was much better. Any critic would say that, wouldn't he?
However, a responsible Opposition would look for evidence. There is no good evidence to support that. Against it we have the evidence of the major resewering and sewage disposal operations of recent years. Noble Lords, in fairness, should really have in mind all that has been done and is being done by the water authorities in this regard, along the Mersey, Tyne, Tees and elsewhere. All this is by way of background, but it is essential background. It is the background to my saying, as this Government have said firmly in recent years, that performance is not as good as it should be.

1139
What, then, are we doing about it? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said he did not know when the work that we have promised would start. I have to say that that really surprised me. As I thought the whole House knew, we have in place a £1 billion programme to bring all non-complying treatment works—so far as it is practicable to do so—into compliance with their consents by March 1992. That is by any standards a major programme and a major investment. I have not the slightest doubt that it will leave this country's performance in this area at a very high level indeed.
It is the case that over the period of this programme, and so long as its requirements are being observed, neither the Government nor, I expect, the NRA will feel it appropriate to initiate legal challenges if the interim consents necessary for works while the necessary improvements are undertaken are being observed. I remark in passing that the allowance of such interim consents is not something new, invented to facilitate privatisation. It is a mechanism of policy which is in place and which has been used for some years past.
This is a proper and sensible approach. What alternative would the critics want? Perhaps we should allow injunctions to close down works entirely and devastate the health and well-being of the communities dependent upon them.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is, if I may say so, customarily fair and responsible in such matters, has not said so and would not, I am sure, say so. But he and others should recognise and spell out the implications of what they ask for. Surely, they can only conclude that what we are doing is fair and right.
In sum, what is the position? We are maintaining, and indeed in some ways extending, the overall pattern of legal liabilities in this area. We are requiring the clear problems to be tackled, and making sure that the necessary resources are available. We are taking the minimum necessary steps, through the terms of the consent system, to ensure that those programmes should be implemented.
Before I begin to discuss the amendment, I must tell the noble Lord that I have not read what he quoted to me from the newspapers. I shall take the first opportunity I can to do so. The amendment asks that the proper, due performance by the companies of these programmes shall not be a matter that the Secretary of State can take into account in deciding whether to use his enforcement powers. I put it to your Lordships that that is entirely unreasonable and wholly unjust.
The water authorities now, and the companies in due course, will be undertaking major programmes for the communities' benefit, to remedy what is not some current fault but inadequacy of attention and investment for decades past. In this they deserve, so long as they duly and diligently perform the agreed programmes, to have the gratitude and support of the House. They do not deserve to be exposed to the risk of ambush at every turn by regulatory authorities exercising their powers unreasonably. This is what
1140
Clause 20(5)(b), in its relation to the general sewage disposal duty in Clause 67, secures. It is, I suggest, the minimum that decency can offer.
The regulatory framework for sewage disposal—both the general duties in Clause 67 and the criminal sanctions on pollution control in Part III—are in combination a harsh regime in such an important field, and rightly so. But harshness must be tempered by fairness. That is all that Clause 20(5)(b) achieves. It is the minimum this House can offer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad in a way that a number of noble Lords have started by raising the historical record. I am glad of that for two reasons. First, it enables me to apologise to the House, as I have already apologised to the Minister, for a misstatement in a speech which I made last Tuesday. I said then that it was not until 1985 that investment in our sewerage undertakings regained the level it had reached when the Conservative Government came into office. That was incorrect. What I meant to say was that the investment in the sewerage undertakings did not regain the highest level it had enjoyed under a Labour Government until 1985. I believe that in fact it was later than that. I apologise for that error.
Secondly, it enables me to repeat that investment in real terms in improving our sewerage undertakings and in capital works in those undertakings was higher under a Labour Government than it had been under a Conservative Government. That is a statement of fact which ought to be taken into account when we consider the historical record. However, much more important than the historical record are the prospects of improvement in the future. I agree with the Minister that we do not want to have a regulatory regime and an enforcement regime which would force a sewage works to close down entirely. That is not the object of the exercise. However, in the Bill there is a perfectly rational procedure of provisional orders which are designed to secure compliance. Those provisional orders are to be followed by final orders, if they are essential. It is this process, from provisional orders to final orders, which is being ignored by the Government in insisting, or attempting to insist, on the wording of Clause 20.
I make two points about that: first as to the ultimate objective of the investment programme and, secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, as to how to get there. The point about the ultimate objective is made very clear, again, by the Financial Times in reporting the views of the water authorities:
"The question the industry is asking is whether some of the billions of pounds required to improve quality to the level deemed necessary could not be better spent elsewhere, either within the industry on alternative infrastructure projects, or on additional health, education or transport services".
In other words they really do not want to do it at all. One industry chief is quoted as saying:
"Consumers are being driven towards very high expectations … we will be getting marginal benefits for a very substantial increase in costs … we are moving away from common sense".
"Mr. Ridley and Mr. Michael Howard, water minister, are thought to be sympathetic to some of the arguments being put forward, but feel increasingly hemmed in, particularly by Brussels".

1141
There are legitimate grounds to doubt whether the water industry and the sewerage industry really want to get involved in improvement and the investment required at any time, let alone at a time which we and the public would consider acceptable.
In his speech the Minister referred to the compliance programme ending in the run-up to March 1992. It is my understanding that some 30 sewage treatment plants will still be breaking the sewage consents after March 1992 and that those 30 include some of the largest in the country. If the Minister is able to reassure me and the House that no significant number of sewage treatment plants are set to break the March 1992 deadline, that will be very helpful.
None of this has dented in any way the arguments which we put forward on these amendments. Let us defer for the moment the issue of whether the companies concerned have any real desire to undertake the expenditure and to achieve the improvements which are necessary. The clause as drafted does not meet the Government's own objectives. It does not secure that the progress from provisional order to final order is met in these cases. It provides far too large a loophole, in subsection (5)(b), to the process of enforcing compliance. What it says in effect is that as long as the water company declares that it will have an investment programme and makes a start on it—and how much of a start is not defined—the enforcement procedures will not be in train.
That is what is not good enough. If we have enforcement procedures they ought to be used. The Secretary of State and the director ought to be capable of setting them in train. It is a matter of logic as much as of anything else that we should insist on these amendments and that we should improve the wording of the Bill and of the enforcement procedures in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
3.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

David, B.

Amherst, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Attlee, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ennals, L.

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ezra, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Falkender, B.

Bottomley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Fitt, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Flowers, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Galpern, L,.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gregson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Grimond, L.

1142

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Hooson, L.

Rathcreedan. L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea, L.

Hunt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Serota, B.

Kearton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Somers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Listowel, E.

Stallard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tayor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mayhew, L.

Walston, L.

Molloy, L.

White, B.

Monson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Willis, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hesketh, L.

Allerton, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Balfour, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Ironside, L.

Blyth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Joseph, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Caithness, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lovat, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Coleraine, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Congleton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dudley, B.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Effingham, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Foley, L.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Halsbury, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

1143

Porritt, L.

Strange, B.

Portland, D.

Strathclyde, L.

Quinton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Radnor, E.

Rankcillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Seebohm, L.

Trafford, L.

Sharples, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Slim, V.

Wynford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 102ZB:
Page 21, line 38, after ("person") insert ("other than an undertaker").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 102ZB on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This amendment addresses the provision of Clause 20(3) whereby, in deciding whether to issue a provisional order, the Secretary of State or the director must have regard to the extent of likely loss or damage to any person as a result of any continued non-enforcement. The amendment is tabled to clarify that the purpose of the subsection is to protect consumers, the environment or others outside the water industry who may suffer loss as a result of a failure to comply. The amendment specifically exempts any loss or damage to an undertaker as a consideration in deciding whether to issue a provisional order.
I hope that the Government will indicate that the provision is not meant to be one which paralyses action while loss or damage to all parties is considered, but is intended as a spur to action to remove loss or damage from innocent parties at the earliest possible date. The amendment would remove the provision whereby information is to be excluded from the director's register where its inclusion would be damaging to the commercial interests of any person.
Under subsection (3) as it stands, the Secretary of State has the power to direct the director not to enter a particular provision in the register for that reason. At the Committee stage, when asked to bring forward examples of that, the Government accepted that they would consider the issue and hoped to bring forward an amendment if no example were found to justify the exclusion. It is now hoped that the Government will accept the amendment, having found no example. If that should be so, clearly it would be welcome to us. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Secretary of State or the director are required by subsection (3) of Clause 20, in deciding whether to make a provisional order instead of a final order, to have particular regard to the extent to which any person is likely to sustain loss or damage in consequence of a contravention of a condition or statutory requirement. The effect of the amendment is to exclude from that consideration whether the contravention will result in the water or sewerage undertaker sustaining loss or damage in
1144
consequence of a contravention of a condition or statutory requirement.
I hope that it will help the noble Lord if I explain the purpose of the subsection. A provisional order is one that can be brought into force very quickly where urgent action is required. Under the provisions of Clause 22(4) and 22(5), failure by an undertaker to comply with a final or a provisional order may be the subject of civil proceedings brought by any person who is affected by a contravention of the order and who consequently sustains loss or damage.
The fact that compensation may be sought in relation to a provisional order means that, where such an order has been made, the appointed company will be immediately liable to an action for damages if it fails to comply with the order. That is why Clause 20(3) requires the Secretary of State or the director, in deciding whether to make a provisional order, which would come into force very quickly, or a final order, which takes some time because it is subject to the procedures in Clause 21, to have particular regard to the extent to which any person is likely to sustain loss or damage in consequence of a contravention of a condition or statutory requirement enforceable under Clause 20.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in moving the amendment. It is to exclude from the consideration of the sort of enforcement order to be made any consideration of whether the water or sewerage undertaker concerned will sustain loss or damage as a consequence of a contravention of a condition or a statutory requirement.
I hope that I can assure the noble Lord that we believe that his well intentioned amendment is not appropriate. Even if the costs of correcting the breach which will be borne by the company could be regarded as a loss—which would not be a correct intepretation of the subsection—they would flow not from the continuance of the breach, but from the costs of remedying the breach. Secondly, as I have already explained, Clause 20(3) concerns a relevant consideration as to the choice between making a final enforcement order or a provisional enforcement order. The undertaker will be the subject of an enforcement order in any event. The Secretary of State or the director cannot decide not to make an enforcement order. Even if it made a material difference to the finances of a company whether an enforcement order came into force quickly or after the lapse of, let us say, six weeks or so, and the Secretary of State misinterpreted the section in the way that is suggested, it would clearly be an irrelevant consideration for him to take into account the effect of one enforcement order compared with another on the finances of the company. Finally, his decision would be liable to be struck down by judicial review. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will be able to resist the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed reply that he has given to me on this amendment. It is only truthful to tell the House, that in part, I understood and that, in large measure, I did not understand. In those circumstances therefore, I

1145
think that the sensible thing for me to do is to take away the reply, study it and decide whether or not the assurances given by the Minister are satisfactory in the context of what we are seeking to do through this amendment. If they are satisfactory, nothing further need be done. If it is my view that something further needs to be done, there may be an opportunity at the final stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102ZC and 102 ZD not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("or 9") and insert (", 9 or 10").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102B.
These are very simple and, I believe, non-controversial amendments. All they do is make the code of practice enforceable under Clause 10 by the Secretary of State or the director general through the appointment of the companies in Clause 20. In the same way that Clauses 8 and 9, which cover environmental duties, are enforceable under Clause 20, so should Clause 10 make the code of practice legally enforceable. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the code of conservation, access and recreation, will give practical guidance on how the undertakers should carry out their statutory environmental duties in Clauses 8 and 9. Such guidance cannot be couched in the precise legalistic terms which would be required if the substance of the code were to give rise to legal obligations enforceable by the Secretary of State. For those noble Lords who wish to check this for themselves there is a draft copy of the code in the Library of the House. It is some 30-odd pages long, and consists more of suggestions than prescriptions. That does not of course mean that it is not important guidance, and the House has decided, with the Government's full agreement, that it should be subject to negative resolution of both Houses.
While we do not think that these amendments can be accepted, because, as I have said, the subject matter of the code necessarily lacks the exactness whch would be needed if it were to give rise to legally enforceable obligations, this in no way means that the code can be ignored by the undertakers. It must be quite clearly understood that their statutory conservation, access, and recreation duties in Clauses 8 and 9 are enforceable by the Secretary of State under the clause we are discussing. As a consequence of Clause 10(2) he must take into account breaches or likely breaches of the code in the exercise of those enforcement powers.
With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps before he sits down the Minister can clarify one point. He said that the code cannot be ignored by the undertakers. He also explained why the Government do not want
1146
to make the provisions legally enforceable and mentioned acceptance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, last Thursday. I should have thought that that would have made these amendments even more acceptable because they are in the same line of thinking.
The noble Earl said that the code cannot be ignored but in what way will the Government enforce it? Will it be left as just a very loose set of guidance notes in the hope of earning the goodwill of the undertakers? That does not seem to make very good sense to me.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may just repeat that as a consequence of Clause 10(2) the Secretary of State must take into account breaches or likely breaches of the code in the exercise of these enforcement powers. My point about the draft code is that the provisions should not be too rigid, too limiting and imprisoning; rather they should be flexible and sensitive to any new requirements that may be needed. It is a draft for practical guidance.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I feel that that answer is very unsatisfactory but I shall take it away and consider very carefully what the Minister has said. I shall then decide how to proceed at the next stage. I do not think that his remarks tie up with the contents of the other clauses of the Bill. They make the code of practice seem an even weaker vessel than we had feared before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
Clause 23 [Special administration orders in relation to water or sewerage undertakers]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 26, line 30, leave out from ("and") to second ("the") in line 31 and insert ("in a manner which protects").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provision on Termination of Appointments]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 207, line 41, leave out ("by means of) and insert ("in accordance with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 208, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert—
"(7) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the transfers authorised by paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (4) above include transfers which, by virtue of that paragraph, are to take effect as if there were no such contravention, liability or interference with any interest or right as there would be, in the case of a transfer or assignment otherwise than in accordance with a scheme under this Schedule, by reason of any provision having effect (whether under any enactment or agreement or otherwise) in relation to the terms on which the existing appointee is entitled or subject to the property, right or liability in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Special Administration Orders]:
The Earl The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 211, line 13, leave out from ("to") to end of line 15 and insert ("a power conferred by the company's memorandum or articles of association shall be deemed to include a reference to a power conferred by a local statutory provision or by virtue of the company's holding such an appointment.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I should like to move Amendment No. 106. Where a special administration order is in force Schedule 6 to the Bill applies and modifies sections of the Insolvency Act 1986. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 relates to Section 14 of the Insolvency Act. The amendment proposed is technical and clarifies the reference to powers conferred by the company's memorandum and articles of association and local statutory provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Government financial assistance where special administration orders made]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 28, line 45, after ("Act") insert—

("(a) the terms and conditions on which a grant is made to any company under this section may require the whole or a part of the grant to be repaid to the Secretary of State if there is a contravention of the other terms and conditions on which the grant is made; and

(b)").

On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 29 [Mergers of water or sewerage undertakings]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 34, line 37, at end insert—
("(10) if the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate for subsection (3) above to have effect with a reference in paragraph (b) above to a different amount, or for the condition set out in that paragraph to be modified in any other respect, he may, in relation to mergers after the coming into force of the regulations, by regulations make such modifications of that paragraph and, for that purpose, of the other provisions of this section as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the criterion for automatic reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of mergers of water and sewerage undertakers under Clause 29 of the Bill.
Subsection 3(b) of Clause 29 requires a merger reference to be made on the basis of the asset value test specified in Section 64 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. This amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to fix the threshold level for water mergers independently of changes to the 1973 Act criterion; or to change the conditions for automatic reference, if he considers this to be appropriate.
The purpose of the special water provisions is to safeguard the ability of the Director General of Water Services to compare the relative performance of water companies by ensuring that there is an adequate number of independently owned water enterprises.
On reflection we believe that linking the water merger reference criterion to that specified in the Fair Trading Act may not be appropriate for all time. For the moment, we consider the £30 million asset value test to be appropriate. It ensures that companies not already vulnerable to reference under the 1973 Act are not subject to reference under the special water mergers regime. It also ensures that there is an adequate number of water enterprises in independent ownership of the director general's purposes. We are concerned however that future changes to the Fair Trading Act thresholds, though in general justified, may, if applied also to water mergers, undermine the objectives of the Bill's provisions.
There is also the possibility that the asset size test for water merger references may in the future become inappropriate. There may for example be significant fluctuations in asset values so that a change to some other criterion might be considered more appropriate.
The amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to fix the asset size threshold at a level different from that in the Fair Trading Act, or to change the basis of the criterion for water merger references, if he considers it appropriate. This provides a sensible safeguard against future changes which might undermine the purpose of the water mergers provisions. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, clearly it must be right that there should be a degree of flexibility in setting the reference criteria. On that basis I do not think that we would oppose the amendment. However, there are two directions in which the criteria may be varied; namely, upwards or downwards. In other words one can make the powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission more or less effective or more or less stringent.
When we considered a comparable matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, expressed concern about the £30 million asset value criterion as it applied to statutory water companies. I believe that his concern was that the £30 million had been set at too low a level and would bring too many statutory water companies within its ambit. My concern is that we might land up with too high a level and find ourselves unable to resist creeping amalgamation and further larger and more powerful private monopolies.
If the Minister is able to help on this matter, I should like from him some indication as to the intention of the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State intend that the reference criteria shall be higher or lower than under the 1973 Fair Trading Act?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the straightfoward answer to that question is neither. It is for the purposes of comparison—as I explained when I moved the amendment—that we wish to keep flexibility. If, for instance, one had a state of affairs where the assets reduced greatly, then the turnover might be by far the more applicable way to judge it. That is the point. I am entirely genuine in saying to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh that we are not

1149
seeking to move such a provision. We are seeking to provide in the Bill the means to do so if it were appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [The Director's register]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 36, line 23, leave out ("or the commercial interests of any person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 31 relates to the director's register. That is a register, which has to be maintained for public purposes, of appointments, terminations, directions, consents, determinations given, provisional and final orders for enforcement under Clause 20 and undertakings given to the Secretary of State for the purpose of avoiding provisional or final enforcement orders. It comes back to the substantive amendment that we were discussing a few moments ago.
When we considered this matter in Committee, we argued that the Secretary of State ought not to have the right to direct the exclusion from the register of such matters that might be against the commercial interest of any person. It is certainly correct that if it is against the public interest, it ought not to be excluded from the register. But if the register is to have any effect, it must be for the public interest and not for the commercial interests of any persons. In this case "persons" largely refer to water and sewerage undertakings. When we put this question the Government were on the whole sympathetic to the idea and undertook to investigate whether there could be any damage if our amendment or a comparable amendment were to be accepted.
We are glad to understand that the Government have found that there are no reasons why this amendment should not be accepted. It is in that confidence that I commend it to the House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, we debated a similar amendment in Committee when indeed I undertook to reconsider the ambit of the subsection. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agreed to withdraw his amendment to allow the Government to reconsider the provisions of the subsection.
We have considered carefully the noble Lord's case and we accept that the words deleted by the amendment are unnecessary. We are therefore now pleased to commend this amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Duty of undertakers to furnish information to the Secretary of State]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 108ZA and 108ZB:
Page 36, line 44, after ("Chapter") insert ("and, in relation to any time before the transfer date, of any statutory water company within the meaning of the 1973 Act").
Page 36, line 46, after ("with") insert (", or with any proposals relating to,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 108ZA and 108ZB I speak also to Amendment No. 171B. These are technical amendments designed to make Clause 32 comprehensive. They will ensure that the Secretary of State can obtain information on any proposals relating to the carrying out of the functions of the water undertakers in advance of the transfer date.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [General duty with respect to water supply]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 108ZC:
Page 40, line 8, after ("available") insert ("at the same level of charge for the same level of service in accordance with section 76(3) below)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 108ZC I speak also to Amendment No. 113.I apologise to the House that this grouping has not appeared on the printed list. This was caused by the fact that the noble Lord, Lard Stanley of Alderley, who is responsible for Amendment No. 113, was in a train stuck at Rugby this morning. He was not here in time to give his agreement to something that he and I had discussed last week; namely, that the two amendments should be considered together.
The reason for these two amendments will be obvious. Amendment No. 108ZC clarifies the fact that the general duty with respect to water supply extends to the provision of supply at a standard level of service for a standard price across the country. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to which I have added my name, makes necessary, indeed essential, the further point that for domestic consumers there should be no difference in the charging clause of the Bill—that is, Clause 76 and the surrounding clauses.
This matter does not arise only on this Bill. It arose when the Committee considered the Electricity Bill last Monday. It is a matter of principle that the supply of water, like the supply of electricity, will be considered to be a public service even after privatisation. Amendments Nos. 108ZC and 113 do not in any way question the fact of privatisation. That is the Government's intention and this is not a wrecking amendment seeking to damage that.
However, it will be commonly agreed that in most people's understanding the issue of whether the undertaking is privately or publicly owned is not all that important. People feel instinctively that wherever they live electricity ought to be at the same price under privatisation as under public ownership; and that the same should apply for water as applies, for example, to the postal service. Perhaps a better example than the postal service—which is publicly owned—is other energy supplies where there is a standard price per unit. Nobody is saying that water prices shall under all circumstances be the same for everybody. At the moment water prices are not the same for everybody because they are based on rateable values. Rateable values will no longer be available when the domestic rating provisions are removed in England and Wales in 1990. But the

1151
Government have foreseen other ways of charging for water. We agree that those should continue.
The issue of metering is not raised here. If there are differences between one local authority area and another on the community charge basis, and if anybody feels aggrieved by that after the passage of this Bill, or after the passage of these amendments, then he has the option of metering his water supply. The same will apply under these amendments as in the Bill as drafted. However these amendments exclude something that is instinctively objectionable to a very large number of ordinary people: the possibility that water supplies, like electricity supplies, in rural areas in particular should be charged at a higher price than water supplies in any other area.
Nobody is denying that the cost of supplying in rural areas may be higher than the cost of supplying in other areas. That is a matter of fact. We know that there are variations in the cost of supply. But it has been the practice as regards public utilities that differences in the cost of supply are evened out. Those who happen to live in rural areas ought not to suffer from differences in the cost of supply.
If the principle of equal charging throughout the country had not been accepted for electricity and water, it is difficult to imagine that the programme of rural electrification and rural connection of water supply to a wider grid would have taken place. If there had been no common standard of charging for electricity or water, then the burden on people living in rural areas of connection to a national grid or to the public water supply would have been too great and the quality of life in our rural areas would have suffered very seriously as a result.
To allow the possibility of returning to differential charging for water in rural areas would be an injustice and would be thought to be an injustice by many thousands of people living in rural areas. It ought not to be permitted. The amendment that I have proposed and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will secure that it will not happen. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as I understand it, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, must be grouped with the one that is in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. It is a paving amendment. I am sorry that I have rushed your Lordships on this, but I cannot be responsible for British Rail having a signal failure at Rugby.
The purpose of my amendment, which is linked with this, is that it is to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, that the disadvantaged rural user of water in any water plc should be charged the same charge as his more fortunate neighbour, as has been the practice in the past. I have altered my amendment to match a similar one that I introduced at Committee stage to take account of the view of my noble friend Lord Renton that it should deal only with domestic consumers.
My reasons for asking your Lordships' support are many, but my main reason is the same as that of the
1152
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I stated a week ago today in debate on the Electricity Bill. I believe most passionately in preserving small local communities because they contribute so much to our national wellbeing in character and stability. That is more than recognised on the other side of the English Channel.
Since the Committee stage, I have corresponded with my noble friend Lord Caithness to see whether he could meet my point. Although, as is his nature, he has replied sympathetically, he has sadly been unable to do so: hence my amendment. My noble friend raised, quite rightly, some technical matters in his letter and on the Floor of the Committee. I hope he will not raise them again, because I do not believe they are well founded and, anyway, they might irritate me, which I am sure he does not for one minute want.
There are just two points which I should counter before my noble friend has a go at me. One was partly dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: that is the problem of different rateable value areas. One might feel aggrieved that the chap next door in a different rateable area had a higher or a lower rate. A high rate might encourage one to put in a meter, which is exactly what I believe the Government want. I am not complaining that if someone, perhaps in a larger house, is using more water, that he has to pay more before metering comes in. That is fair because in a larger house more water is likely to be used. There is always the possibility of putting in a meter.
At Committee stage my noble friend conceded in a reply to my noble friend Lord Wise that it will be possible to charge different rates for different areas in the same plc. He gave reasons why it would not happen. Indeed, he, like my honourable friend Mr. Howard in another place, expressed the same hope that these charges would not be differential. In reply to a similar question, my honourable friend said:
"Were the anxieties expressed by my honourable friends…well-founded, I would share them. I represent a rural constituency and the interests of my constituents would be at stake".—[Official Report, Commons; 21/2/89; col. 1263.]
We are all on the same side, or I hope we are, but somehow we do not have it quite right. The important point is that it is your Lordships' duty to legislate not on hopes and "ifs", but to legislate on facts. The fact is that water public liability companies will be able to charge differently. The fact is that they will be driven by profit and the director general will have no power to stop them because of Clause 7(3)(a), which I need not repeat to your Lordships but which gives a prior possibility to consider profitability before service.
As I see it, I am at one in principle with my noble friend on the Front Bench and with my honourable friend in another place. I merely wish to put their hopes on the face of the Bill, so ensuring that all are treated equally in terms of price for water. I hope your Lordships will agree that provision of water is a real necessity for life.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lords McIntosh and Lord Stanley, have now touched on what I think is one of the most serious issues in this

1153
important Bill that we have embarked on. The Bill will transfer public utilities and a vital service into private utilities. It is for that reason that the Government have put in place, and we have debated in great depth, various protective measures—a highly regulatory system. This is a vital service which will still be run on a monopolistic basis.
Here we have a possible loophole because Clause 7(4), to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred, would make it possible in theory—whether in practice or not is another matter—for rural inhabitants to be charged the full cost of getting water supplies to them. That would seriously worsen their present position. We had a similar debate, as your Lordships who were involved will recall, on the Electricity Bill. There exactly the same issue arose and the vote at the end was very close run.
I believe that we must demonstrate very clearly that, if it is the practical intention not to discriminate against rural users of water, then that intention should be clearly demonstrated on the face of the Bill. We have been told on more than one occasion that while the wording of the Bill has been fairly vague, the intention behind it is clear. However, Ministers change, governments change, administrators and boards of companies change. If it is generally considered by this House that there should not be discrimination against people located in rural communities, I submit to your Lordships that the provisions for their water supply should be stated very clearly so that there is not the slightest doubt about it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendments and the intention behind them, which is the elimination of discrimination. I accept what my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord McIntosh, said. Where I am left somewhat confused is whether this will be the effect of these amendments. Underlying the amendments has been the intention to protect against discrimination rural consumers of water. If the amendments were to be put on the face of the Bill as I read it, it is possible that the people who would then be disadvantaged are the urban communities. That is a risk that we have to bear in mind. If the purpose of the amendments is to remove discrimination on the cost of water supply, it is not much good removing it from rural consumers and handing it over excessively to urban consumers. That appears to be a possibility in the light of the wording of the amendments.
I am not against the idea of trying to eliminate discrimination. I also heard the comments made in Committee and elsewhere about the safeguards and monitoring and the powers of the director general to carry them out. However, I have a strong feeling that somewhere and somehow the lack of discrimination should be emphasised.
In view of the variation in rateable values my concerns are not the same. I do not wish to reopen the argument about metering versus flat rate charges. However, it cannot be fair to base the charge for water on a property, however that is charged, until we know how much each person consumes. The
1154
water consumption of two people in two properties side by side may be very different.
I accept that kind of differentiation in respect of direct charges. However, leaving out the question of monitoring the exact amount consumed, if one wishes to remove discrimination it is not much good passing it from one group of consumers to another. That is my anxiety. When one puts together the duties under Clause 7 and the wording of the amendments I believe that that could be the possible consequence of the amendments and I felt it right to express my anxieties to the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is an important matter which has had an interesting evolution in our proceedings. It began when my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, supported from both sides of the House, tried to achieve a greater uniformity of charges throughout rural areas. For example, it would mean that all farmers, factories and so forth must be charged the same for thousands of gallons on a metered supply.
It appeared to me that those who were really important and most vulnerable in rural constituencies were the domestic consumers. Today my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has tabled an amendment which covers their position precisely. In Amendment No. 113 he does not limit the issue to the rural consumers because it relates to all domestic consumers in a particular area.
There is an obvious desire in all parts of the House for domestic consumers to be treated equally and not to be discriminated against. Therefore I hope and expect that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be with us at least in spirit. As my noble friend Lord Trafford has wisely pointed out, it is a question of taking on board the fact that, although we are anxious about the rural consumers, the position of urban consumers is deserving of equally careful consideration.
I do not know whether Amendment No. 113 is practicable. If it is I should like to see it accepted by the Government. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I believe that if we are to pass amendments relating to charges it is better that we should do so by amending Clause 76, dealing specifically with charging powers, than by amending Clause 37 as he has proposed, dealing with the general duties of undertakers. It is nearer to the point to deal with the matter as an amendment to Clause 76; that is, if either way is the right way.
Noble Lords will be interested to hear the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, it would be unfortunate—I should like to be political for one moment—because it could lose the Government a large number of votes if in addition to the increase in charges which are likely to take place in many areas (inevitably and properly so, because so much has yet to be achieved in attaining the right water quality) there is a feeling of injustice and discrimination within any particular area. In those circumstances the number of votes lost may be considerable.
Baroness White: My Lords, far be it from me to worry myself unduly about the number of votes

1155
which may be lost by the party opposite. However, I wish to make a point which perhaps has not been fully understood by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. Generally, it is true that the distribution costs of water in a thinly populated rural area are considerably higher per consumer than those in a thickly populated urban area.
In the Principality of Wales we have the ironic situation that if one lives on the shore of Lake Vyrnwy which supplies Liverpool, or in the Elan Valley which supplies Birmingham, it is probable that one is already paying a higher water charge than if one lived in either of those great cities. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has said, it is most important that we should try to protect and sustain the smaller rural communities. They have enough problems as it is with agriculture and with incomers putting up the price of houses without having extra burdens for water. It is almost on their doorstep but they could be charged much more than people in other areas.
I do not wish to detain the House but it is important to recognise these genuine problems and some of the reasons for them. In Wales we have the same problems with transport and water. The costs of distribution are much higher per consumer because it is a thinly populated area.
I very much regetted the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, lost by only two votes his amendment dealing with similar issues in the Electricity Bill. Surely, however strong our feelings may be we must recognise that electricity is open to some kind of competition and one may have a possible choice. However, in respect of water there is no choice. Water is an absolute necessity for all human beings and there is a complete monopoly. Therefore I hope that the House will see fit to accept Amendment No. 113.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support the amendment and I take up the words of my noble friend Lord Trafford. My reason for supporting it has been repeated again and again: it is to support rural communities which are distant, waning, and to some extent under pressure. Although an element of subsidy is creeping in it must be only small because basically we are an urban country. Our rural population has diminished and is continuing to do so. An even rate must be charged across urban areas and rural communities. The amendment is worthwhile and I give it all my support.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I was not present when he moved the amendment. However, I hope he agrees that that does not prevent me from giving it my support, albeit briefly. I was encouraged to hear my noble friend Lord Renton say that he was confident that our noble friend on the Front Bench was with us in spirit. That carries me some of the way. It depends upon what kind of spirit is being talked of. I hope that my noble friend's spirit will be shown in tangible form this afternoon in his response to this very important amendment.
1156
My noble friend Lord Renton said that he thought that the Government should accept this amendment if it was practicable. It is not for me to judge whether the amendment is practicable or impracticable, but, if that is the Government's objection to it, then the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, having moved the amendment, must do as he thinks fit. I hazard a guess that most noble Lords would be very happy to leave this for the Government to go away if they felt so inclined and bring back at Report stage something which better answers the objection.
Lord Renton: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy I must make it clear that I was suggesting that it was Amendment No. 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley which should be accepted by the Government if it was practicable, because I feel that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is in the wrong place in the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, that does not alter the sense of what I am saying. I do not mind whether either or both these amendments are practicable. If the objection is on the grounds of practicality then it would be acceptable to me because the Government will obviously want to take the next step and go away and find something better. I do not wish to dwell at length on this matter because the arguments have been made. I think that we are all concerned, and rightly so, that the burdens of those living in remote areas should not be unfairly and oppressively increased.
Faced with an argument of the strength of this one, I should have felt very confident that the Government would immediately intervene in the debate and say that they accepted this point. However, I am somewhat depressed by the memory of last week's experience when the same arguments were eloquently adduced by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, and received widespread support from both sides of the Committee. Nevertheless the Government decided that they could not even take the matter away with a clear undertaking that they would come back with something adequate at the next stage. In those circumstances my noble friend felt certain—and I agreed with him—that the right thing to do was to divide the House.
I hope that, although my noble friend on the Front Bench was not involved in that exchange, he has had the opportunity to dwell upon it and to consider how unfortunate it would be if those of us who sit behind him and who feel strongly on this issue should be driven to take the same action this afternoon.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend how the proposed charging system in this Bill varies from that in the 1973 Act. These charging structures are very complicated. I am not absolutely clear as to how they will work under this Bill. I know fairly well how the 1973 Act worked. I should like to read out some subsections in Section 30.

1157
"In fixing charges for services, facilities or rights a water authority shall have regard to the cost of performing those services, providing those facilities or making available those rights.
"A water authority may make different charges for the same service"—
having had regard to the cost of performing it—
"facility or right in different cases, but it shall be the duty of every water authority to take such steps as will ensure that, as from a date not later than 1st April 1981, their charges are such as not to show undue preference to, or discriminate unduly against, any class of persons".
The phrases "undue preference" or "discriminate against" were always regarded as the Ark of the Covenant. This did not mean that all the charges were going to be exactly the same, but that there should not be undue preference.
The complications in the clauses of the present Bill are very much greater than those of the 1973 Act and I should like my noble friend to elucidate what it is that he is proposing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, does not expect all charges to be exactly the same everywhere; there must be some regard to cost. What we should like to know is that there is not going to be undue preference.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords at 10 o'clock on Saturday night I lost my private water supply. A pipe burst and I was without water in my household for seven to eight hours, and I realised what a problem that is. The farmer next door said, "We've been going to the wells in the field a few hundred yards away for the last 30 years and you'd better start doing it now". There is a mains supply within 30 yards of my cottage. I am trying to persuade my farmer neighbour and a contractor to connect to that supply. At the moment they are unwilling to do so because they think that the charges will be much higher and that it is better to retain the very faulty supply which comes from the hill behind us.
If this amendment were not to be accepted in principle by the Government, it would be another nail in the coffin of trying to persuade my neighbours to get on to the main. In addition it must be to the advantage of the water supplier plc to have more consumers. If we are going to put barriers in the way of people connecting to mains where they exist in very rural areas—a mains supply was put through only a few years ago—then it must be to the advantage of the water plc that as many people should use that supply as possible as well as keeping the charges down.
It is also worth making the point that most of the supplies come from the rural areas. The Elan Valley goes a very long way to Birmingham and Birmingham goes to Liverpool. There is a quid pro quo the other way. I make that point because I know that in rural areas where people are not connected to the mains. They are looking at this issue. Most people think that they will not connect to the mains, whereas they ought to connect. There is a fear that charges will go through the roof. If they do not connect it will make it much more difficult and mean higher prices for the people who are connected to such mains.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in his amendment. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us in his reply why domestic consumers of water, whether in rural or urban areas, should not pay the same amount. Would the noble Lord not agree that the Post Office makes the same charge whether it delivers mail in the street where the sorting office is or in the remotest area of the country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Clause 37 sets out the general duties of the undertakers with respect to water supply. Under subsection (1) every water undertaker is required to develop and maintain an efficient, economic and wholesome supply within its area. Further, it is required to maintain, improve and extend the supply network so that it is able to meet its water supply obligations.
Amendment No. 108ZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would add a further specific requirement to that general duty—namely, to require that all supplies are made available at the same level of charge for the same level of service. A similar proposal is introduced by the proposed Amendment No. 113 to Clause 76(3). Clause 76 makes provision for water and sewerage undertakers to fix and recover their charges according to charges schemes. Subsection (3)(a) provides that a charges scheme may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different circumstances or localities.
Amendment No. 113 seeks to qualify this provision by requiring that the charges made under the scheme must be for domestic supplies for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by the undertaker. We adopted a similar amendment in Committee, together with a further amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley which required the removal of the words "all localities" from subsection 3(a) of Clause 76. The aim of the two amendments was similar—namely, to remove the possibility of discriminating against rural customers.
I explained that rural customers—indeed, all customers—would enjoy considerable protection from discriminatory charging by a combination of the duties imposed on the director general by Clause 7(3)(a) and by Conditions B and D of the model instrument of appointment. That point was rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Nugent, who has great experience of the 1973 Act which contains very much the same as is in this Bill. He said that there has to be some flexibility between charges. He made that clear to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh though I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, took it on board.
My noble friend said that there was to be no undue discrimination. I confirm to my noble friend that we have translated what is in the 1973 Act into Clause 7(3)(a) of the Bill and by Conditions B and D of the model instrument of appointment. That is why, when he looks at the Bill, he will see that it is somewhat different from the 1973 Act, but one must then take into account the model instrument of appointment. In that way we cover exactly what the

1159
1973 Act set out to do. I hope that sets my noble friend's mind at rest.
In particular, the charging formula in Condition B of the model instrument of appointment limits the overall level of charges increases, though the undertaker has powers to decide which charges are increased and by what amounts. As a result of the limit on increases there are no incentives to the undertaker to increase its charges to rural customers since there would have to be a reduction in charges elsewhere. Further, the ban on undue discrimination in Condition D would prevent the undertaker from making abitrary increases in its charges to one group at the expense of another.
I also explained that having a flat rate charge could produce some perverse charging patterns. For example, it could be interpreted as requiring a flat rate applicable to rateable values over the whole area of the water undertaker. Far from imposing fairness, that would mean a significant reduction in the charges to those in rural areas because rateable values there are lower for the same type of property. That is positive discrimination. One might even say to my noble friend Lord Stanley that it is vested interest discrimination. Who knows?—I might even benefit where I live in the country. A corollory to this would be a significant increase in the charges to inner city properties. I do not put forward to your Lordships that there is any justification for such discrimination against the inner city areas.
It does not look terribly good for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. First he says, "I do not like the fact that there is to be a control on prices and I will vote against a control on prices so prices can go up to whatever limit they decide". That is certainly what the noble Lord did in the early part of our Committee stage; he voted against a control on prices. He is now saying, "Well, for all my friends in Haringey to whom I have been an incredibly good servant over the years, I am sorry, chums; your water rates are going to increase substantially as a result of what I propose to vote for today".
The noble Baroness, Lady White, also commented that prices in urban areas would have to increase as a result of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposed. I wonder whether the properties in the Elan Valley or on the shores of Lake Vyrnwy are really comparable to the inner city properties to which she referred, because I do not believe that she is comparing like with like. For example, can the noble Baroness tell me how much the resident of a three-bedroom detached house in Cardiff might pay? I do not know, but it would reveal that one should not take a few individual examples to make a case.
If it is not a flat rate on rateable value that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has in mind, what is it? Would it be a national scheme? That is one interpretation of the noble Lord's amendment. It is such a vague amendment one does not know. Is it a flat rate per property? That would not reflect the size of the property or indeed the number of occupants. Perhaps the noble Lord is on to a new wheeze—a flat rate per person, a water community tax. Surely that is not what the noble
1160
Lord wants. Perhaps the level of service is intended to refer to the number of domestic appliances, with all the difficulties that would bring. Perhaps the noble Lord wants universal water metering. If so, he is indirect conflict with the noble Baroness, Lady White, because I can remember that at an earlier stage it was mentioned—I think by the noble Baroness—that the Welsh Water plc-to-be does not want metering and that it is to charge on a different rate.
It is a false analogy to mention electricity. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sought to persuade your Lordships that it is the right analogy because electricity is charged through metering. At the moment in this country the majority of properties are assessed on domestic rates, and the noble Lord was wrong to say that domestic rates would cease to be the base for water rates from 1990. It will be the year 2000, and that is exactly why the water authorities are bringing in metering schemes to assess the implications of that in various parts of the country. Again, that was debated at some length by your Lordships at an earlier stage.
The noble Lord alleges that the rateable value method of charging means that water charges are not uniform throughout the area of the undertaker. He is right, but he should not assume that the same rateable value poundages in all parts of a given undertaker's area are uniform. In fact, I do not think that the amendment is at all clear in its effect.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask one further question. It appears to me that, under Clause 76, even if meters are introduced under subsection (3) (at the top of page 88) the charging scheme may make different provisions for different cases, including different provisions in relation to different circumstances or localities. Therefore in those circumstances even the meters could vary. I am sure that is not what any Members of your Lordships' House desire.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend makes an entirely valid point. It shows that little thought has been given as to how the amendment would sit in the Bill as it stands. I am grateful to my noble friend.
I should like to take up the comment made by my noble friend Lord Stanley. He said that the fact is that water companies will be able to charge differently, that they will be driven by profit and that the director general will not be able to stop adverse discrimination against rural users. I have to say to my noble friend that that is quite untrue. The provisions in Clause 7 and in the licence are designed to provide a protection against undue discrimination. There is no loophole of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned. In my view, discrimination against rural areas would be a serious matter and could well amount to undue discrimination.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way for a moment. Can he explain to the House what Clause 7 means in giving

1161
a prior responsibility to the director general to look after the return on capital before all else? How does that fit in?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are back on to this same old subject and I am grateful that my noble friend has raised it yet again. I ask him to open the Bill and turn to Clause 7. He will see in subsection (2)—this is exactly what I told him in Committee—that,
"The Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Director shall exercise the powers mentioned in subsection (1) above in a manner that he considers is best calculated … to secure that the functions of a water undertaker and of a sewerage undertaker are properly carried out as respects every area of England and Wales".
The important duty is to get a supply. I pity some of the areas that my noble friend is seeking to protect if he says that the director general does not have that duty, because that is the duty. It is important to get a proper, efficient and palatable supply of water.
I continue dealing with my noble friend's allegation which I said was untrue. In considering whether to take action the Secretary of State and the director general will of course have to act reasonably. The courts will provide the discipline for that. I have no doubt that those who represent rural interests, such as the NFU, will ensure that Secretaries of State, of whatever allegiance, are kept up to the mark. Having said that, there can be no doubt that I am with my noble friend Lord Renton, who commented on this in spirit.
We are discussing two different amendments. One is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. That is the amendment being moved. It is a wide amendment with unforeseen consequences. I hope that I have raised in your Lordships' House some of the very serious concerns that it poses and some of the difficulties and discrimination that will result from it. The second amendment we are discussing is that tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley. It has received a great deal of support in your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Peyton pointed out, there is nothing between us on whatever side of the House we sit. We are seeking exactly the same result; the difference between us is how we put it on the face of the Bill. Given what is on the face of the Bill and in the model instrument with Conditions B and D, I contend that my noble friend's concerns are covered and taken care of. However, if he is not satisfied, my door is always open. I shall be happy to discuss the problem between now and another stage. There is so little between us—indeed there is common ground in what we seek to achieve—that it seems sad that we cannot reach agreement. I am perfectly happy to try to do so.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has sought to make a distinction between the two amendments that we are debating. Perhaps I may repeat the reasons why the two are necessary and why they fit together in order that we may get more clearly in our minds the issue that is before the House. I believe that the issue was well understood by almost every noble Lord who spoke before the Minister replied.
1162
As has been rightly said, Clause 37 is concerned with the general duties of water undertakers. In that clause is placed the question of maintaining,
"an efficient and economical system of water supply".
That is the fundamental obligation on water undertakers. Nothing in this amendment or any other will derogate from that fundamental responsibility. But the general duty is more precisely defined in Clause 37(1)(a). It refers to the requirement to provide,
"supplies of wholesome water to premises in that area and for making such supplies available to persons who demand them".
That is quite precise. "Making such supplies available" is going much further than the most general obligations. It still leaves open the question of the basis on which supplies are made available. If they are made available on a charging basis which discriminates between rural and urban customers, then they are not being made available to persons who demand them in any commonsense way on fair and equal terms. Therefore it is necessary to turn from Clause 37 to Clause 76 at page 88 of the Bill in order to understand precisely what the Government mean.
A number of noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, seem to think that our amendments run the risk of remedying discrimination against rural customers by discriminating against urban customers. I believe it is necessary to remind the House that Clause 76(3) goes out of its way to say:
"A charges scheme may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different circumstances"—
There is no disagreement about that—
"or localities".
It is the Government who are deliberately and in full consideration adding the question of different charges in different localities to the face of the Bill. No one is denying that there will be different circumstances which lead to the necessity for different kinds of charges. After all, the principle behind the privatisation procedure is that different water authorities, although monopolies in their own areas, will be competing with each other on price. According to the Government, one of the measures of their efficiency will be the ability to provide water supplies at the most economical price.
I must not allow the Minister get away with saying that I am simply opposed to controls on prices. I said that I preferred not to have privatisation but that if we had it the proposed controls on prices were not adequate in the absence of controls on excess profits. These are different methods of control. It is not my proposition that we should do without any controls whatever. Clause 76 deals with charging. The Government, very deliberately, consciously and explicitly, lay open the possibility of charging different amounts by locality. The point at issue is not that there should be uniform prices everywhere. Obviously we are speaking about rural areas where the cost of supply is so much greater. The point is that it should be possible for charges to be greater by locality.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, being debated with this amendment to

1163
which I have my name, does not seek to standardise all charges throughout the whole country, as has been claimed. It states that the charges should be,
"at the same level of charge for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by the undertaker".
This is not the same amendment that was brought forward at Committee stage; it is one that has been carefully considered. I put it to the House that it does not upset the basic charging arrangements set by the Government for water; it does not call into question the issue of control of prices; and it does not propose any difference in charging or raise the issues of metering as opposed to charging on some other basis. I agree with the Minister that charging on the basis of rateable value can continue to the year 2000. If I said to the contrary then I apologise: I made a mistake. This amendment does not raise any other issue than one made necessary by the use of the phrase "different provision in different localities" and that those living in rural areas should not have to pay more for their water.
I am not competent to add to the very strong points made by noble Lords who live in rural areas. As the Minister rightly said, I am a Londoner and I have very little direct experience. I am tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to withdraw my amendment because of the electoral consequences for the Government if it is not allowed to go through. Everything that I have heard from noble Lords who have much greater experience than I convinces me that the issue has not been adequately resolved by the answer given. I shall give way first to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and then to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, indicated first that he wishes to intervene.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to deal with the point that I raised; namely, that if this matter is to be dealt with on the face of the Bill by means of either of these two amendments, surely it will be better to amend Clause 76 than Clause 37.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that you have to do both. That is my point. Unless the general duty on undertakers includes a duty to make supplies available and also to make them available on a specific and fair basis, then Clause 76 does not have its full effect. That is why the two are put together.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. As this issue affects my amendment quite considerably, perhaps I may make two points. I wonder how many of your Lordships have been in the position of feeling that whatever you say or do is bound to be wrong. I feel that very strongly at the moment.
I appreciated my noble friend saying that he would meet me again to try to resolve this problem. It is one which my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Peyton and indeed every noble Lord has recognised. Will he when he meets me concede the point that the picture has now changed? Privatisation has come into the formula whereas before ordinary water companies were involved. There is a slightly
1164
different picture now, Secondly, will he concede the point that somewhere in the Bill there must be a better definition to ensure that domestic consumers in any one water plc area pay the same price? My noble friend says "Yes"; I say that we want it and noble Lords say that they want it. It is not in the Bill. I cannot agree with my noble friend that the point is covered as the Bill is presently drafted. Is he prepared to say that he will try to find a way through so that both these points are met?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in order to comply with the rules of debate I shall gladly give way to the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. With the leave of the House, as my noble friend Lord Stanley knows full well, if I offer to meet him everything is up for grabs. I agree with him on his first point in so far as there is a change of ownership. To me it is not really the ownership that matters; what matters is getting the Bill right and keeping the fairness that is there in the 1973 Act and as we believe we have it in this Bill. I am happy to discuss whatever my noble friend would seek to raise with me.
I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. His amendment is different. It relates to all water supplies, not just to domestic supplies. I fear that he has studiously avoided replying to any of the questions that I put to him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My amendment does not refer to all water supplies. It refers to Clause 76(3). The whole point of the linkage between the two amendments is that my amendment does not propose any change in the charging system for all water supplies. As amended by Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, the clause would propose further protection for domestic consumers. There is no conflict between the two amendments.
I am discouraged by the noble Earl's repetition of his argument that there is adequate protection in the terms of the model instrument of appointment. He claims it to be comparable with that of the Water Act 1973. It may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to say that there is no undue discrimination but the point we are making and which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to be making, is that the undue discrimination protection is good enough for a public water industry but is not good enough for a privatised water industry. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord I shall gladly give way.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the noble Lord has not misunderstood me. He has understood me absolutely right. My noble friend did not answer my last question as to whether he would meet me to discuss putting something on the face of the Bill before Third Reading.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think I did answer that question. I said that I was happy to discuss anything with my noble friend.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the noble Earl—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if either of the two amendments was accepted it would to some extent remove the discrimination in rural areas. But would it mean transferring the discrimination to affect the urban areas? Does the noble Lord accept that point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it could not conceivably transfer discrimination to urban areas because the amendment limits the opportunity for the water companies to discriminate on the ground of locality. It would improve the position for domestic customers in rural and urban areas.
These two amendments are a seamless robe. They are both necessary. However, the more important of the amendments is the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. If he wishes to withdraw his amendment in order to take part between now and Third Reading in discussions with the Minister it is only right that I should offer to withdraw my amendment first. If on the other hand he feels that the assurances he has been given are not enough and that he wishes to proceed with his amendment, I shall put mine to the House.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that generous suggestion. My amendment arises again later tonight. I shall have tea and think about it. I think it would be correct to give my noble friend on the Front Bench a chance to have a cup tea with me and consider the matter further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would not wish in any way to interfere with negotiations between the Government Front Bench and the Government Back Bench. On that basis, although I believe that my amendment is necessary and may have to be re-inserted at Third Reading, it is appropriate that I should ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 108ZD:
Page 40, line 19, at end insert ("or, in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State—

(a) a local authority in the area concerned; or

(b) any person resident in the area concerned

on application in either case to the High Court and where the Secretary of State exercises the power to make regulations conferred on him by this section.
(3) Any references in section 20 above to the Director shall be interpreted as though they were references also to a local authority or person resident in the area, as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to an issue which I hope will be of as much concern to noble Lords who are interested in the
1166
rights of domestic water consumers as how the enforcement provisions can be implemented and how they will be dealt with in practice. In Committee we considered the possibility of co-opting local authorities into the enforcement process as equal partners with the Government and the Director General of Water Services. That option did not find favour with the Government or with the Committee. What we are proposing now deals with the objections raised by the Government and still, we hope, achieves rights for local water customers and for the local authorities representing them in the enforcement procedure.
It is fundamentally wrong that only the Secretary of State and only the director general should have the right to institute actions under the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Our amendment says that the Secretary of State shall have the power to make regulations for local authorities in an area or for local residents to have the right to apply to the High Court to activate the enforcement provisions. The nearest analogy I can make is with access to the law in general. It must be a principle of the law—I speak as a non-lawyer—that access to the law is available to all citizens who feel themselves aggrieved or in any way in need of the law of the land. When we are dealing with the supply of water, a natural monopoly and an essential element not just of civilised life but of life, the enforcement procedures against the monopolists, in particular the private monopolists who are to be created under the Bill, are quasi-legal in their effect. Unless these enforcement procedures are not only there but are available to everybody who wants them they will not be fully effective and will not be seen to be fully effective.
It cannot be right for the Secretary of State and his appointee—the director general—alone to have the opportunity to trigger the enforcement procedures laid down under the Bill. If anyone reads Clause 20 of the Bill and sees the way in which the enforcement procedures are set out—and set out, if I may say so, with a good deal of clarity and force—they will experience some disappointment when they realise that instead of those procedures being available to ordinary people, they are available only to the Secretary of State and to the Director General of Water Services.
There cannot be much confidence in enforcement procedures which claim to be available to protect water consumers if the consumers themselves, and the local authorities which represent them, do not have the power to trigger enforcement proceedings. The Secretary of State clearly has an interest: he has an interest in ensuring that the water industry and the sewerage industry proceed on an even keel. But the Secretary of State has no interest in finding fault with the system; and the director general, who is the regulator, has an interest in exposing faults in the system rather than finding fault in it. He is the appointee of the Secretary of State. Moreover, however much his powers may be set out in the Bill, that is still not enough to give him the degree of independence which I think ordinary people would feel is necessary to ensure access to the enforcement procedures.
No one is saying that the proposed system is perfect; indeed, in order to overcome the kind of objections we met in Committee, we have left it in the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to secure wider access to the enforcement procedures. Therefore, in the way in which he sets the regulations he can protect the water authorities from frivolous complaints. That is what I understood to be the objection to our previous amendments. I do not like putting forward the provision that this should be done in regulations set by the Secretary of State, but that is what we have done in order to overcome that objection.
This is not a very strong amendment. It is deliberately designed to recognise the objections raised in Committee and to be a proper Report stage amendment. However, it is a start and indeed it gives the Secretary of State—any Secretary of State—the opportunity in future years to make more widely available the enforcement procedures of Clause 20, and those of surrounding clauses, which should be available to all of us from the start of the privatisation of the water industry. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the important underlying feature of this amendment which enables local interest to be brought into the enforcement procedures. Water is a matter of local interest and it is organised on a local basis. While it is quite clear in the regulatory system which has been created that the Secretary of State and the director general must play the predominant role, I think that we should always be searching for ways in which local interest can be introduced. It is on this basis that I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the underlying objective of the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Clause 37 deals with a water undertaker's basic water supply duty. Every undertaker is required to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area. This general duty forms the foundation of which the following specific water supply duties are built. The duty is enforceable by the Secretary of State or the director under Clause 20. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the duty in this clause to be enforceable, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, by a local authority or an individual.
If the noble Lord's real concern is to ensure that individuals are able to take action against the undertaker to protect their interests, I can assure him that it will not be met by this amendment. The Bill already provides in the following clauses of this chapter for individuals to take action against an undertaker for failure to comply with specific water supply duties. It is right and proper that an individual should be able to act where he suffers loss or damage through an undertaker's failure to comply with a duty that is owed specifically to an individual.
The amendment proposed would simply lead to confusion about what was expected of the undertaker without improving the position of the individual consumer. In our discussions on a similar amendment in Committee, it was argued that the
1168
local authorities were required to inform themselves of the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supply, but that they were given no powers to take enforcement action if they found them to be below standard. I expressed the view that such a power would be a source of confusion. I still maintain this to be so.
Although the standards which water undertakers are required to comply with are well-defined, the course of corrective action is not necessarily so clear. The situation will become even more confused if individuals were to take enforcement action. Further, after the earlier debate took place, the provisions of Clause 20 were strengthened considerably by our amendments. It was then acknowledged that some requirements could not be complied with overnight. The Secretary of State or the director may well have agreed programmes of remedial action with the water and sewerage undertakers concerned. Further action emanating from a range of enforcement interests would cut across agreed programmes. There would be over 400 enforcement authorities and 50 million individuals able to take enforcement action.
We do not believe that this amendment would be of benefit to consumers. It is already open to individuals to take action against undertakers in cases where they are adversely affected by breaches of the individual supply duties. The enforcement procedures now have the approval of the European Community and we see no reason to confuse that system.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may explain the clear steps which local authorities will be able to take if they believe that there is a breach of the Clause 37 duties in circumstances where they consider enforcement action is necessary. First, they may approach the Secretary of State or the director general; and, secondly, local authority representatives can voice the concerns at the meetings of the customer service committees where they will have about one-third of all the representation. The customer service committees are required by Clause 27(1)(c) to refer any matters relating to enforceable duties to the director general. In that way the director general can decide on what action to take in the light of his wider knowledge of matters such as agreed programmes for remedial action.
We believe that this amendment is unnecessary and hope that your Lordships will be able to resist it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find some parts of that answer distinctly disingenuous. The noble Lord seeks to argue that because the European Commission has agreed to the enforcement procedures set out in Clause 20, then that means that it has agreed to the way in which these enforcement procedures are to be triggered. Nothing could be further from the truth; indeed, if the European Commission had been so bold and intrusive as to say, "Not only do we think that the wording for enforcement procedures is necessary; but this is how it should be triggered and this is who the enforcement procedures should be available to", there would have

1169
been a howl of disapproval about the interference in our domestic affairs. No doubt there would also have been a howl from No. 10 Downing Street, as well as from the Benches opposite.
The question of how we implement our enforcement procedures is a matter for this country; it is not a matter for the European Commission. What we are saying by way of this amendment is that the implementation of the enforcement procedures is simply not adequate in that it is not available to people in the way that it ought to be. The availability of the enforcement procedures is confined to the Secretary of State and to the Director General of Water Services who is appointed by the Secretary of State. The argument behind the amendment—namely, that it should also be available, in accordance with regulations set by the Secretary of State, to local authorities and to individuals—is as strong as it was before the Minister rose to his feet to reply.
It is simply not the case that our amendment would cut across any undertakings or exemptions being given by the Secretary of State. The regulations which he is empowered to make under this amendment would ensure that exemptions granted to water undertakings would be adhered to. It ensures that undertakings given by the water suppliers to improve the quality of their water supply would be adhered to and would be an adequate defence. The Secretary of State can ensure that by the way in which he makes regulations; in other words, we are not exposing the water undertakers to complaints by 50 million people without regulation. In some ways I wish that we were. In some ways I believe that local people know far more about what is wrong and have far more right to take action, as they do under any other branch of the law, than the Secretary of State or his appointee. However, we have not been as bold as that. We have been much more cautious and circumspect.
I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has not recognised the realism and constructive nature of the amendment. I am sorry to say that his answer has not satisfied me. It is necessary for me to seek the opinion of the House.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108ZD) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Alport, L.

David, B.

Amherst, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Attlee, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ennals, L.

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falkender, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkland, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

1170

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shannon, E.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay, L.

Somers, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Listowel, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thurso, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Walston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Willis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Mulley, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hesketh, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Allerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Hood, V.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Ingrow, L.

Belstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bessborough, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Blyth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kimball, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Carnock, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carrington, L.

Margadale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Marley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mersey, V.

Cross, V.

Middleton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Munster, E.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Nelson, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elibank, L.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Foley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Radnor, E.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harvington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

1171

Rodney, L.

Trafford, L.

Sharples, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Westbury, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wynford, L.

Swansea, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 38 [Standards of performance in connection with water supply]:
5.39 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 108ZE:
Page 41, line 18, after ("circumstances") insert ("being circumstances not under his control").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment returns to issues raised in Committee on Amendment No. 290A, where the provision in Clause 38(6)(d) for water undertakers to be exempt in certain circumstances from the requirements of the regulations was tested to prompt a government response. The Minister argued (at col. 1018 of Hansard for 15th May) that the undertaker must have the opportunity to be exempted in the case of circumstances beyond his control. The amendment takes up the Minister's suggestion and inserts precisely such an exemption. The wording that we insert is:
"being circumstances not under his control".
Where no fault arises in the undertaker, an exemption may be provided for. Where there is any question of circumstances being under the control of the undertaker, there should be no opportunity for exemption. The Minister is asked to explain further what circumstances may arise which, though under his control, will nonetheless give rise to an exception to the requirement for standards of performance in connection with water supply under Clause 38. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Amendment No. 108ZE would restrict the circumstances in which a water undertaker is to be exempted from the requirements of regulations in respect of individual standards of service, otherwise known as the guaranteed standards scheme, to circumstances not under the control of the undertaker.
I appreciate that in putting forward this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has taken some account of the points I made during Committee in relation to an amendment which would not have allowed any exemptions to these regulations. However, there are three objections which I have to this new amendment. The first is that by not qualifying the word "control" by "reasonable", the undertaker could still be liable where he has not taken contingent action to avoid some event happening even though it was quite unreasonable, having regard to the costs concerned, for him to do so. For example in the case of a major burst the circumstances may be so exceptional that it would
1172
be unreasonable for the undertaker to have been expected to restore the supply within the period specified in the regulations.
Exceptional circumstances are by their nature difficult to define, but the type of situation we have in mind here is where, in the case of a major city centre burst, the undertaker's water mains records may not be comprehensive. Therefore the complexity of the problem may not be appreciated until the pipework is unearthed.
Furthermore, it is far too expensive to have ready off-the-shelf replacements for all the unusual special types of pipework that may be found in an ageing distribution system. In some cases therefore a special pipe may need to be manufactured. In the meantime, a temporary repair may mean that some of the customers are without their normal supply. In the event of a dispute between the customer and the undertaker on whether the circumstances really were so exceptional that the undertaker could not reasonably be expected to restore the supply, the matter could be referred to the director general to resolve.
My second concern is that there have to be exemptions to the undertaker needing to meet the requirements in the first place. The example I gave in Committee from the draft regulations for the guaranteed standards scheme is where a customer informs the undertaker that he no longer wishes to pursue a complaint. In those circumstances the undertaker will naturally be exempt from having to pay £5 where he failed to respond to the complaint within a specified standard time.
Finally, an important exemption to the guaranteed standards scheme is that non-domestic customers are not covered by it. The £5 payments for large industrial and commercial concerns would hardly be relevant. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to limit the circumstances in which the undertaker will be exempt from the requirements of the regulations provided under subsection (2). However, I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will appreciate that even this new amendment could impose an unreasonable burden on the undertaker which would increase the cost of all water to customers and make it difficult to provide for certain exemptions to assist in the practical operation of the regulations themselves. It is for those three reasons that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister has listened very carefully to my arguments, because they were his arguments on the previous occasion. Now that I have used them he has three objections to them. I suppose that if at Third Reading I were to try to meet the points which he has made this time he would find two or three more objections to the points which I have tried to deal with.
I understand that the Minister is saying that there are limits and duties, but those should not be so onerous or punitive as to make impossible the ability

1173
of an undertaker effectively to provide what we all want—a satisfactory supply of water.
I also took very careful note of the circumstances which the Minister had in mind. However at this stage in this kind of debate, almost inevitably there will be hypothetical situations. I understand the point which he made that sometimes it would be impossible to foresee every contingency. For instance, because of the nature of a catastrophe in a city centre, there would be major matters to be dealt with which could not be immediately foreseen. Therefore one could not expect the undertaker to have on the shelf or off the peg the precise piping required.
I was interested that the noble Lord said that the ageing distributive system could well be found to be a matter of concern. We shall come to a debate on later amendments under which we shall want assurances from the Government in regard to the companies which are in a sense being let off the burden which we seek to put on them in the amendment. Those companies are being asked in our later amendments to keep faithful records and from time to time to report on the precise state of their infrastructure. I am satisfied, first, that the Minister will not change his mind; and, secondly, that in the debate we have put the points which we wanted to make. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Supply of water for non-domestic purposes]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 53, line 28, leave out ("new").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to thank my three noble friends the Ministers for their consideration and considerable correspondence both with myself and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook between the Committee and the Report stages. I shall take into account much of that correspondence in presenting the amendments today.
Amendment No. 108A is an adaptation of Amendment No. 312 at Committee stage tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. Clause 46 deals with the supply of water for non-domestic purposes and the equivalent provision in the current legislation is Section 27 of the Water Act 1945. That Act provides that water undertakers are not under a duty to give a non-domestic supply, if giving that supply would interfere with their other obligations or involve unreasonable expenditure. The provision in the 1945 Act refers to "a supply", not "a new supply" and not "an increased supply". The equivalent provision in Clause 46(3) of the Bill refers to "a new supply".
My concern in tabling this amendment is that an existing non-domestic consumer could have a very low water consumption. He could change the use of his premises to one which would result in a vastly increased water consumption. Under Section 27 of the 1945 Act the water undertaker would not be under a duty to supply water for that increased use if giving that supply would interfere with its other obligations.
Under Clause 46 of the Bill as drafted, the water undertaker would be under a duty to give such an increased supply. In responding to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour in Committee, my noble friend Lord Arran stated that the amendment was unnecessary as the undertaker could put a limit on the quantity of water to be provided in the non-domestic supply agreement. I agree that if Clause 46 of the Bill were to be enacted in its present form, water undertakers would be very sensible to include such a water restriction in non-domestic supply agreements. However my concern is with all the existing non-domestic supply agreements. There must be hundreds of thousands of them which do not contain any such quantity restriction.
In a letter from my noble friend the Minister to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on 30th May, it was accepted that there were very few existing agreements containing conditions relating to the amount of water to be provided. For example, I understand from Anglian Water that the vast majority of non-domestic supply agreements do not contain any quantity limitations, for as the current legislation is drafted there is no need for such a quantity limitation. Therefore it is no answer to say that undertakers can include a quantity limitation in their domestic supply agreement. That does not cover the case of the hundreds of thousands of existing non-domestic supply agreements. All that amendment seeks to do is to remove the word "new" from Clause 46 and thus return the legislation to the equivalent of what is contained in Section 27 of the 1945 Act. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. However, if he is not minded to accept it, will he consider putting some form of wording in the Bill which will provide protection for all the hundreds of thousands of existing non-domestic supply agreements which were drafted on the basis of the current legislation, and which contain no quantity limitation? I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, the intention behind this amendment is to enable an undertaker to refuse to provide an increased supply of water for non-domestic purposes in cases where the clause currently provides for it to refuse a new supply. As my noble friend said, we discussed this issue at length in Committee. I have since written to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on the subject. While I must admire my noble friend's persistence in pursuing this matter, I am afraid there is little further of substance I can add to what has been said previously.
Clause 46 re-enacts the existing provisions in Section 27 of the Water Act 1945, in so far as it limits an undertaker's obligations in relation to the initial provision of a supply, and in so far as it provides for the initial supply to be subject to appropriate terms and conditions, such as a limitation on the amount of water to be provided. The supply will thereafter be governed by the terms of the contract. Where there is no right to increase a supply under the contract, and an increase is required, a new contract for that amount will need to be negotiated.

1175
As regards existing agreements, we understand few actually contain conditions relating to quantity. This is presumably because the water authorities have not felt it necessary to take what might seem a prudent precaution because they have been satisfied that the risk of increased consumption prejudicing other supply obligations has been minimal. It may well be that they have been influenced by practical considerations. Many non-domestic agreements involve very low consumption and relate, for example, to supplies to cattle troughs. To switch such supplies to alternative use on a significant scale is likely to require much larger quantities of water, and perhaps for it to be supplied at higher pressure. This may well be beyond the technical capacity of the existing pipework and associated apparatus. In such circumstances new works would therefore be necessary to provide the increased supply, unless the existing agreement provided for the right to demand that such works be carried out, or such a provision was implied. However, that is unlikely. The request for the increase would amount to a request for a new supply, which would bring it properly within the safeguards of Clause 46.
The danger with Amendment No. 108A is that it would give an undertaker the right to discontinue an existing supply of water for non-domestic purposes, at current levels, because it took the view that to continue to provide the supply would put at risk its other supply obligations. Persons receiving the non-domestic supplies could, therefore, have their supplies and the businesses that are dependent on those supplies, put at risk. This is interference with agreed contracts and is clearly not acceptable, as I am sure noble Lords will accept.
I hope that in these circumstances my noble friends will agree that this amendment is misconceived, and will accept that there is nothing to be gained by pursuing it further.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I think, with deference, that my noble friend has not been very fair. The provision in the Bill is not a re-enactment of the 1945 Act. It introduces new terms and conditions by the word "new" which the amendment seeks to delete.
If my noble friend were to agree to some form of wording that did not include the word "new", he would genuinely be proposing a re-enactment of the 1945 Act, under which the existing water authorities have been operating. I do not think my noble friend is necessarily justified in making an assumption from the fact that at present, as he admits, very few existing agreements contain conditions relating to the amount of water provided. Incidentally, I can confirm that in the Anglian region the vast majority of non-domestic supply conditions contain no reference to any maximum quantities. The reason why they contain no such reference is that the wording of the 1945 Act did not contain the word "new". Therefore, at all times, they were able to refuse additional supplies if those supplies would interfere with their other obligations or would involve unreasonable expenditure. They operated within a different framework.
1176
Therefore, I do not believe it is fair to say that Clause 46 is simply a re-enactment of the 1945 Act. Under the current legislation, an undertaker has no duty to provide an increased non-domestic supply if giving that supply interferes with his other obligations or involves unreasonable expenditure. It is for that reason that few existing agreements contain quantity limitations. I hope that my noble friends will see the strength of this argument.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to add a few further words on this point. My noble friend the Minister stressed that if someone suddenly started to use a lot of water, a new agreement could be reached between the supplier and the user. However, there is nothing that I can see within this clause which clearly states that an agreement exists. Let us suppose that someone has a half-inch pipe, but runs it at full bore on a 24-hour basis. His consumption of water will increase considerably. I am concerned that, in respect of supply, a provision should be put on the face of the Bill to state that the user shall not be allowed to use more water than was agreed, or, if he does use more water than was agreed, a new agreement must be drawn up. The undertaker should also have the option of changing his mind. I feel there is something missing in this clause.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Balfour have said. However, I remind the House that we are on Report. My noble friend has replied to the mover of the amendment. With respect, it would have been helpful if these points had been made before my noble friend replied. I wish to say from the Dispatch Box that I have noted what my noble friends have said and I shall discuss it with my noble friend. However, I think we should stand by the rules of the House on Report.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful, albeit out of order, for the support I have received. However, I take issue here. I do not think that there is something missing; I think that there is something here that should not be here. To delete the word "new" would bring this Bill into line with the 1945 Act. That is what we seek. I am absolutely certain from the reply that my noble friend the Minister gave, that we all know what we want and we are all in agreement on that. We do not wish to lay an unreasonable duty on the water companies. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider my request that if he cannot accept the amendment as set out, perhaps he will ensure that this Bill is consistent with that requirement of the 1945 Act. I apologise for being so persistent. We simply want the Bill to be consistent with that requirement of the 1945 Act, so that an unreasonable duty is not put upon the water companies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to press her amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accepted a nod as an agreement that something would take place

1177
between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108B:
Page 54, line 49, at end insert—
("(10) Nothing in this section shall impose any duty on a water undertaker to provide a supply of water directly from, or maintain any connection with, a water main which is a trunk main which is or is to be used by a water undertaker for the purpose of conveying water from a source of supply to a filter or reservoir or from one filter or reservoir to another filter or reservoir.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is an adaptation of Amendment No. 312B which I moved in Committee. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the Bill to make it clear that a water undertaker is under no duty to supply water for non-domestic purposes directly from a trunk main. In his response rejecting the amendment I moved in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, referred to bulk supply mains.
However, my main concern is with connections to a particular category of trunk main and not with bulk supply mains. Some confusion may have arisen because of the definition of trunk main in Clause 182(1) of the Bill. The trunk main definition is as follows:
"'trunk main' means a water main which is or is to be used by a water undertaker for the purpose of—
(a) conveying water from a source of supply to a filter or reservoir or from one filter or reservoir to another filter or reservoir"
or, alternatively a bulk supply main.
I have accordingly refined my amendment so as to place a water undertaker under no duty to provide a non-domestic supply from a trunk main falling within category (a) of the definition, a trunk main which is used primarily for taking water from, for example, a bore hole to a reservoir or from one reservoir to another.
I am informed that it is bad practice to supply direct from a trunk main, although it occurs in a few cases—often isolated farm supplies. These trunk mains, as opposed to bulk supply mains, normally take water from a treatment works to a reservoir or tower for storage. The trunk main itself may not have much storage to back it up and hence will be liable to variations in quantity and pressure. It would therefore be difficult for a water undertaker. to guarantee supplies from this category of trunk main.
Clause 45(5)(a) already provides that a water undertaker is under no duty to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes from a trunk main. All I am seeking is the insertion of a similar provision in Clause 46 relating to non-domestic supplies.
In his letter to me of 7th June my noble friend Lord Hesketh said that the limitation on domestic supplies from trunk mains is mainly on quality grounds because trunk mains may carry untreated water. Does the Minister realise that so-called non-domestic supplies may also be used for drinking and cooking? For example, the supply to a canteen in a factory would be a non-domestic supply. Also, if one looks at Clause 46(1)(a), one sees that supplies to premises which do not consist in the whole or in
1178
any part of a building come under Clause 46. Such supplies—to caravans for example—would be used for domestic purposes and not non-domestic purposes as the marginal note suggests. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend the Minister's water quality argument.
Although my main concern is with non-domestic connections to trunk mains in category (a) of the definition in Clause 182 of the Bill, I am also still concerned about the implications of connections to bulk supply mains. If there was a problem on a service pipe the water undertaker could be required to cut off the supply to a large number of consumers while repairs were carried out. Surely the interests of the wider public should prevail over the interests of just one customer. I also understand that in Germany no supplies are given direct from trunk mains of either sort.
As I have met the Minister's reasons for rejecting my Committee stage amendment I hope that my noble friend will now be able to accept the revised amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the wrong order on the last amendment. This is an issue which is felt to provide quite severe operational difficulties for the future water supply companies. For example, if there was a problem on a service pipe connected to any kind of bulk main supply, whether of treated or untreated water, the undertaker might have to stop the bulk main supply in order to deal with the problem of one user. Inevitably that would create severe problems for a large number of other premises supplied with water from that main. Therefore for operational reasons this is a serious problem. I hope that my noble friend will consider the amendment in that light.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has said, we discussed this issue in Committee and I have since written to her in an effort to put her mind at rest. However, I apologise because it appears that I have failed to do so. I admire her persistence in returning to the subject.
We acknowledge that in some cases there will be technical difficulties, as my noble friend has explained, in providing a supply of water direct from a trunk main. The water in such mains may not be of the quality appropriate to the needs of a non-domestic customer. It may not be subject to constant pressure or it may be present in the mains only intermittently. In all those cases the director general, properly advised as he will be, is very unlikely to determine terms and conditions which would result in supplies being given from such a main. However, there may be cases where a supply from a trunk main is appropriate. We are not persuaded that there should be an absolute rule against non-domestic supplies provided from trunk mains or that an undertaker should have the final say in these matters. We consider it only fair and reasonable that the question of the suitability of particular pipes should ultimately be decided by the director who will consider each case on its merits.
One aspect of the amendment which my noble friend may not have appreciated is that it would

1179
enable an undertaker to cease supplying water to existing non-domestic customers where the supply was provided by means of a connection with a trunk main. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be most unreasonable to discontinue an existing supply on which a customer's livelihood could well depend simply because it was provided by means of such a connection.
Furthermore, my noble friend has suggested that there is a danger that if non-domestic supplies from trunk mains are permitted, a supply to a factory for a use which included its canteen would result in the employees not receiving wholesome water. I can assure my noble friend that that would not be the case. Such a supply would be a supply for domestic purposes because of the definition of "domestic purposes" in Clause 182(2) of the Bill. It would therefore be subject to Clause 42(2)(a) which provides that an undertaker is not obliged to connect a service pipe for a domestic supply with a trunk main.
With those words, I hope that I can persuade my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I am not quick enough to take into account the reference that he made at the very end of his explanation about Clause 182. Therefore, I should like to read what he said.
I am concerned about the number of cases which might be subject to referral and the consequent increase in the workload of the director and in bureaucracy. It seems to me that the amendment would resolve that problem. However, I should like to read what my noble friend has said. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has any idea of the number of referrals likely to be made if the amendment is not accepted.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not have that number in my head at the moment; but if it is helpful to her, I undertake to write to my noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a kind offer and I shall accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 108BA:
Page 55, line 28, after ("occupier") insert—
("(aa) in the case of a hydrant fixed to any main other than a trunk main requisitioned under section 40 above or laid by an undertaker but not so requisitioned, by the person requisitioning or the undertaker laying that main").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we return to the issue of fire hydrants and who should pay for their installation. We have already had a canter over this particular course; but we consider the issue very important indeed and wish to engage the government spokesmen once again.
The amendment provides that the cost of installing a fire hydrant fixed to a mains other than a trunk main by an undertaker should fall on that undertaker
1180
rather than on the fire authorities. The existing position is an anomaly which has persisted since the fire service legislation of 1945. It differs from the case of gas and electricity utilities, where the costs are borne by an undertaker when services are installed in new housing developments.
Surely the best outcome would be for the cost of installation of such hydrants to fall on the developer or the purchasers of the developer's houses. I should like to remind the Government that—very shortly in England and Wales, and already in Scotland—community charge payers in an area as a whole will have to pay for fire hydrants which may not be of direct benefit to them. It is incongruous that the community charge payer in a depressed borough should pay for hydrants installed on a new private housing estate of expensive dwellings being built on its outskirts. Unless the Bill is amended, that will be the position; namely, that the hydrants that will be installed will have to be paid for by the fire service. That cost will then be met by the community charge payer instead of the developer.
At the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said:
"The costs incurred by a water undertaker are directly related to the fire authorities' functions and incurred solely at the instigation of those authorities."—[Official Report, 15/5/89; col. 1031.]
I do not think that that is a fair analogy at all. It is certainly the case that the need for hydrants is a requirement by the fire authority; it is a legal obligation. However, the instigation is the developer's choice. If the developer had not decided to develop in a certain place, there would not have been a legal obligation to provide the hydrant. The fire authority is merely responding to developments in its area.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out, the matter was relatively unimportant when it concerned only public authorities. The matter now concerns water undertakers in the private sector and fire authorities in the public sector. In principle, there seems to be no reason why there should be a subsidy from the public to the private sector of a kind that would ultimately benefit water undertakers' shareholders.
If the Minister cavils at how marginal these matters are, I should simply remind the House that there are marginal matters which we should have pressed the other way, but which the Minister has argued would be sensible. We believe that this is a matter of great importance, not least to the generality of ratepayers who will find that their charges for fire services through the community charge will be marginally increased when, in our view, and in the circumstances that I have outlined, they should be borne by the developer.
Clause 47 indicates various exemptions. Clause 47(6) states that the expenses incurred by a water undertaker in that respect will be borne:
"by the owner or occupier of a factory or place of business, by the owner or occupier for the time being of that factory or place".
But it goes on to say that those expenses will be borne:
"in any other case, by the fire authority concerned".
We believe that developers of the kind that we have indicated should be in the same situation as those to whom I have just referred. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, we debated this issue in Committee. Then, it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who moved the amendment and my noble friend Lord Hesketh who spoke on behalf of the Government. There has been a change of bowling in the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has put forward the arguments in a similar way to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There has also been a change of batsman and I shall defend in much the same vein as did my noble friend Lord Hesketh.
Apart from the case of factory owners who pay for their own hydrants, the costs incurred by a water undertaker are directly related to the fire authorities' statutory functions. They are incurred at the request of those authorities and not as a result of the requisition of the mains supply. These are not therefore charges which it is appropriate to recover from the water undertakers' customers or from owners and occupiers of premises who may have requisitioned a water main on which a fire hydrant is then located.
I contend that it is not reasonable to compare the provision of fire hydrants with that of electricity or gas, as did the noble Lord. I shall go further and compare it with domestic water supply services which are, by and large, limited to the private use of customers. A fire hydrant serves a public emergency purpose. Fire fighting is a public service which it is right should be supported centrally from public funds. Not least in accountability terms, it is clearly better for fire authorities to continue to be responsible for costs incurred at their request.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister can see the case for an exemption in respect of the supply of water to factories which is a public service. A distinction is made with regard to factory owners, so do not let us argue that there are no distinctions. The Minister makes a distinction, for which he makes a case, and everyone else is lumped in. We are certainly mindful of the change in the circumstances of local authorities. Fire services are maintained by the public. They are paid for by the public, substantially by the central exchequer—the taxpayers—but they are also funded by the local people. I can envisage, as I know the Minister can envisage, many an area where the additional burden of providing the fire hydrants will turn out to be punitive for the existing payers. I believe that the developers—the undertakers—are equally able to pass on the cost without it having to be borne by the public. I do not think that the Minister has given a satisfactory answer and I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House.
6.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108BA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Bes wick, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Galpern, L.

Thurso, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Aldenham, L.

Greenway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Alport, L.

Harvington, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Holderness, L.

Bauer, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Ingrow, L.

Blyth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Joseph, L.

Caithness, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Clinton, L.

Layton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Margadale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Marley, L.

Cross, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mersey, V.

Elibank, L.

Middleton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Mottistone, L.

Grantchester, L.

Munster, E.

1183

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sharples, B.

Nelson, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Somers, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Onslow, E.

Strange, B.

Orkney, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Pender, L.

Swansea, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Terrington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trafford, L.

Radnor, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rodney, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Selborne, E.

Wynford, L.

Shannon, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.24 p.m.
Clause 49 [Powers to disconnect service pipes and cut off supplies]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108C:
Page 58, line 3, after ("shall") insert ("if that undertaker has reasonable grounds for believing that such disconnection or cut-off may last longer than forty-eight hours").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is an adaptation of Amendment No. 320ZB which I tabled at Committee stage. Clause 49(8) places a duty on a water undertaker to notify a local authority within 48 hours of disconnecting or cutting off the supply of water to an inhabited house. The purpose of the amendment is to cut down on bureaucracy and remove that duty from a water undertaker in those cases in which notification to a local authority would serve no useful purpose.
In Committee I said that it was likely that most of those notifications would be made to the local authority after the event and therefore it seems to be an unreasonable requirement on the water companies. None of the water undertakers' normal operational work would involve a cut-off for more than 48 hours. My amendment at Committee stage would have restricted the requirement to give notice to cases in which the water supply was disconnected by reason of non-payment of water charges. In rejecting that amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, stated that there were public health reasons why a water undertaker should notify a local authority of disconnections by reason of essential works which could last for a considerable period. I agree that if there were to be lengthy disconnection for operational reasons—for example, for a period of over 48 hours—there would be good reasons on public health grounds to require the water undertaker to inform the local authority of that disconnection.
However, I understand that such lengthy disconnections would only happen on very infrequent occasions. I think all noble Lords would agree that there is no point in a water undertaker giving a local authority notice of a disconnection after the supply has been restored. Therefore in rewording my amendment I now provide that the water undertaker should only be required to give
1184
notice to the local authority if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the disconnection may last for longer than 48 hours. This amendment would not affect notices in respect of disconnections following non-payment of water charges because at the outset the water undertaker would not know when the customer was likely to make payment. On the other hand, the water undertaker would know at the outset whether the operational works involved one of the rare cases in which disconnection for longer than 48 hours would be needed.
I feel that my new amendment meets the objections made by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to the previous amendment. I therefore hope that he will accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it may be useful for me to speak first to Amendment No. 108CA, which is grouped with this amendment. To put it politely, there was a certain amount of confusion over this matter at Committee stage and I confess that I was one of those who were confused. Amendment No. 108CA to some extent is intended to put matters right.
The position set out in the Bill is an extreme and rather strange one. It requires that local authorities shall be notified of all disconnections, however short and for whatever reason, and that they shall be notified straight away or within 48 hours. There is no provision at all for the local authorities to be given any useful analysis of the disconnections. They are just disconnections. All the reasons may be lumped together, as may all the periods of time. In other words, as it stands this is not a very useful provision, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, it may in fact become a burden on local authorities without being of any assistance to them.
The first purpose of the exercise of notification surely should be that the numbers of serious disconnections should be known. We suggest a period of 24 hours rather than 48 hours, but I would not be stood at the wall for that. Secondly, there should be some kind of analysis of why there should be disconnections. Clearly if disconnections are made for physical reasons such as road works or any other interruption of supply, it is of interest in an engineering sense; if disconnections are made for reasons of non-payment of bills that is of interest in a social sense; and if there are disconnections for any lengthy period of time, that is of interest in a public health sense.
Unless the reason for disconnection is given, there is not much point in the whole exercise. Neither is there a great deal of point in having disconnections notified as they occur or soon afterwards. Our amendment proposes that they should be notified in six-month batches with an analysis of why the disconnections took place and the lengths of time involved.
Having said why I think that notification in a revised form is important, it is necessary to consider whether the local authorities are the right people to be notified. Clearly, from the point of view of public health, it is right that the local authorities should be notified. That is why we have left the subsection unchanged. However, from the point of view of

1185
customer service, whether, in the engineering sense, it is a physical breakdown of supply, or, in the social sense, disconnection because of non-payment, the customer service committee ought to know. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 108CA provides for the notification that I have described. I believe it to be sensible. However, it is to the customer service committee rather than to the local authority.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 108C which stands in my name. I should like to raise one further point. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said on 18th May at col. 1304 that to the best of his knowledge there were no problems with a similar provision in the existing legislation. From the operational view of a water authority, the current equivalent provision is contained in Section 39 of the Water Act 1945 immediately following the provision in Section 38 which gives the water undertaker power to cut off supply following non-payment of charges. In practice, Section 39 has always been regarded as requiring notice solely in respect of disconnection for non-payment of water charges. That is one of the aims of Amendment No. 108C. It so happens that in this Bill the powers of disconnection for all purposes are contained in Clause 49, along with the notice provision. So there is need for an amendment to make the position clear.
It may be useful if I remind noble Lords of the figures. They were quoted in Committee. In the Anglian Water region there are 1,900 disconnections a year following non-payment of water charges. But there are about a quarter of a million cut-offs for operational reasons that last for less than 48 hours. If we multiply that figure by 10—on the basis that there are 10 regional water authorities—we arrive very arbitrarily at a figure of two and half million such notices circulating through the system each year. If they were sent by first class post this would represent expenditure of approximately £0.5 million. If they were sent by Fax there could be some red hot telephone lines.
The amendment restricts the requirement to give notice to a local authority of disconnections following non-payment of water charges and those rare cases when there are good grounds for anticipating that a cut-off for operational reasons is likely to last more than 48 hours.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the prospect of one's water supply being cut off, even for an hour or two, is not to be relished. However, it seems that it happens quite often. I am thankful to say that I have not experienced it to any great extent. Clearly, when it happens, the local authority should be informed—and in reasonable time. I see no objection to my noble friend's amendment.
Although it may have some other attractions, I am somewhat alarmed to find that Amendment No. 108CA reveals my ignorance of our language. I have never before come across the word "disaggregated". I know what "aggregated" means—at least I think I do—but if we are to have an entirely new word inserted in a statute I think that it may require
1186
definition. Surely we could do better than to use such a terrible word.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Government rise to reply, I must defend the word "disaggregated" which has been in common use for many years in economics, as my noble friend Lord Jay, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who is such a distinguished economist, will confirm. Unless one has the ability to disaggregate data—to take data which is produced in aggregate terms and to apply it to specific circumstances—then one is depriving oneself of one of the major tools of economics. So far as I know, ever since the word was first used 60 years ago, there has been no satisfactory alternative to it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for asking the question that I dared not ask. Clause 49 sets out the circumstances in which a water undertaker is able to cut off or reduce supplies of water. Subsection (8) requires an undertaker to serve notice on the relevant local authority within 48 hours of cutting off a supply to an inhabited house. This requirement is for public health reasons. The purpose of Amendment No. 108C is to limit the requirement to notify the local authority to those disconnections that the undertaker has reason to believe will last longer than 48 hours. My noble friend Lady Blatch explained that the reason behind her amendment is concern that under the provisions as they stand the water undertaker will be required to notify the local authority even of disconnections that last no more than an hour or two.
The purpose of Amendment No. 108CA is to provide for each water undertaker to notify the relevant customer service committee of all disconnections exceeding 24 hours or causing a danger to health which have occurred over the preceding six months.
Clause 49(8) re-enacts Section 39 of the Water Act 1945. It is a provision which has worked satisfactorily for at least 40 years so far as we are aware. We should be surprised to hear that local authorities have insisted on the service of notices for disconnections lasting short periods or that they have prosecuted authorities for not doing so. However, having said that, I have some sympathy with the arguments of the noble Baroness because I am always ready to improve the Bill. I am not, however, convinced that the onus should be on the water undertaker to decide which disconnection should be notifed to a local authority. Nor do I agree that all disconnections lasting less than 48 hours should not be reported to a local authority.
As to Amendment No. 108CA, I explained on a similar amendment in Committee that the customer service committees will have access to information on interruptions of supply required to be published each year under Licence Condition I by undertakers in their levels of service information and service target reports. Interruptions of supply are among the service indicators for which targerts are to be set in order to improve the quality of service and encourage increased efficiency.

1187
In our view it is disconnection for non-payment which will be of primary interest to the customer service committees. This is a central matter for company customer relations. Unlike disconnection for necessary works, there is no requirement on the undertaker to provide an alternative supply where the disconnection is likely to last for more than 24 hours.
I gave an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in Committee that I would consider whether an appropriate amendment might be made either to the Bill or to the licence to require water undertakers to provide customer service committees with numbers of these disconnections for non-payment of charges. I am now happy to announce that we propose to make it a condition of appointment that the water undertaker informs the relevant customer service committee of the number of domestic premises which have been disconnected for non-payment of charges during each consecutive period of six months. The information is to be broken down to show the number of premises in each operating division or equivalent of the undertaking.
In conclusion if my noble friend Lady Blatch will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 108C, I give her an assurance that I shall look again at this provision with a view to meeting the concern about disconnections where the supply is re-connected within a few hours. I would also hope, in the light of the new requirement and the conditions of appointment, that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 108CA.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for the concession that he has made. My noble friend is grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I do not have the right to reply before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may thank him. The provision in the conditions of appointment is an acceptable substitute and I shall not be moving Amendment No. 108CA.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. What has been suggested will be a useful performance measure when it comes to the customers' committees making judgments about the performance of their particular company. It is also a case of, just occasionally, persistence paying off. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108CA not moved.]
Clause 51 [Duty as respects constant supply and pressure]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108D:
Page 61, line 20, after ("above") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 51 places a water undertaker under a duty to provide a constant supply of water at an adequate pressure. Clause 51(9) provides a defence to that duty, if the
1188
undertaker can show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
The defence under the Bill differs from the defence under current legislation. Under current legislation it is a defence for undertakers to show that they have failed to comply with the constant supply and pressure duty by reason of frost, drought and unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause.
My concern in tabling the amendment is with the practical problems which could arise, in particular with respect to a water undertaker's apparatus which was constructed many years ago. It obviously will not be possible for water undertakers to upgrade all their apparatus overnight to take account of the new, more stringent, defence in the Bill.
Although my Committee stage amendment was rejected, in responding my noble friend Lord Arran stated that pipes laid under the old provisions will continue to be subject to the old conditions. The Bill's requirements will apply only to pipes laid under the provisions of the Bill. I welcome that response, but my concern is that the Bill as drafted does not provide what my noble friend Lord Arran stated.
My amendment therefore provides for the existing defence to continue to apply to works or apparatus constructed before the transfer date under this Bill. All the amendment does is to achieve what my noble friend Lord Arran interpreted the Bill to provide in responding to my Committee stage Amendment No. 321AZA. I hope therefore that my new amendment will be accepted.
A further point is that my noble friend Lord Caithness has written to me on my Committee stage amendment stating that he would expect the courts to accept arguments that it would be unreasonable to expect undertakers to have to dig up and relay pipes laid at a time when there was an exemption for frost to avoid damage by frost. However I argue that it is unreasonable to leave water undertakers with that element of doubt. There can be no certainty as to what a court would decide. I feel that rather than leave these matters to the decision of the courts the position must be made clear in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Caithness went on in his letter to state that undertakers should show all due diligence in laying new pipes—that is, the replacement of old pipes. I accept that. If my amendment were even further refined to provide that the existing defence should continue to apply to apparatus constructed before the transfer date—as long as the water undertakers had carried out a reasonable programme of replacement—that would meet my requirements. It seems that both my intentions and those of the Government are getting closer all the time. Even at the risk of being criticised for being persistent again, I ask the Government to consider my amendment further on that basis. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renten: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I have to say to my noble friend, whose efforts I greatly admire, that I am afraid that her new defence would

1189
not really be in the interests of those to whom she is offering it.
The trouble is this. Under subsection (9) there is a defence stated in very broad terms. It shall be a defence:
"for that undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence."
That is without limitation of particular circumstances. That wide defence can be shown in any circumstances. But under my noble friend's defence, it is limited to those cases where the mains, reservoirs, pumping stations etc. were laid or constructed before the transfer date, and also where the undertaker was prevented from complying with his obligations through frost, drought, unavoidable accident, or unavoidable cause. That looks very nice and broad and helpful. But in practice if we have a defence which specifies limited circumstances, we are not really adding anything to the opportunities of defence in circumstances where there may be prosecutions. Therefore I hope that in the interests of the undertakers it will simply be the broad defence that is left to them. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel about it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, this amendment was discussed previously in Committee. I appreciate that the amendments relate to the current legislative position. My noble friend's concern is that water undertakers shall not, immediately after the transfer date, be required to dig up and relay pipes laid under the old conditions. I do not believe that this is the effect of the clause as drafted. It will ultimately be a matter for the courts to determine what constitutes "reasonable steps" and the exercise of "all due diligence" in relation to any case.
However we trust that the courts will accept the argument that taking all reasonable steps and exercising all due diligence will not extend to undertakers having automatically to dig up and relay mains etc. laid or constructed before the new conditions came into force. Clearly, however, undertakers thereafter will be expected to carry out a normal programme of maintenance on that apparatus which will, for example, from time to time include repairing run down water mains. In doing so it is right that they should be required to take all reasonable steps and exercise all due diligence to avoid breaching their duties. The side effect of these amendments would be to provide an absolute defence even in these circumstances. In other words, there would be no recourse for a consumer who was adversely affected should the undertaker, in carrying out future repairs, fail to take even the most basic measures to avoid frost.
I believe my noble friend will find that that is an undesirable effect. Not only do I hope that she will bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Renton said, but I hope she takes on board the unforeseen consequence of the amendment before us. I believe that we have met her concern in the Bill. I appreciate that it was important to have this matter properly aired. We considered it and that is why the Bill is so worded.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted a question. If I understood the Minister correctly, he is saying that it is reasonable to assume that the water companies' will make every effort to bring antiquated old apparatus up to standard, but it cannot be expected to be done overnight. Therefore they need to convince a court that they have a reasonable programme of improvements. If there were damage to a piece of apparatus that the company had not started restoring or bringing up to the new standard, would that be grounds for defence against a charge of negligence, for example?
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I think she will find that it is a rule of interpretation of statutes that they are assumed not to have retrospective effect unless the opposite is stated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108E not moved.]
Clause 53 [Regulations for preserving water quality]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 108F:
Page 62, line 41, at end insert—
("(f) to issue, with any demand to consumers in respect of water charges, a statement of the water quality achieved in the area concerned, including details of any failure to meet standards prescribed for the purposes of section 52 above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in our view it is a reasonable request to make of the Government that if they are anxious to ensure that water consumers are made more intelligent concerning the quality of the water that they drink, they ought to look with favour upon this or a similar amendment. The amendment asks the Government to lay on water undertakers a duty to advise consumers of the quality of the water which they are selling and the deficiencies in it.
Last Tuesday my noble friend L-ord McIntosh reminded the Minister that it is relatively simple to obtain from Thames Water Authority, for instance, a description of the quality of the water in various parts of its area and match that against EC standards.
I do not make a party point because the Government are genuinely seeking to enliven the debate on the quality of water. From time to time the Minister vigorously defends the quality of the water consumed in his country. However, as a reasonable man he acknowledges that where standards are laid down, whether he accepts them as sensible, there are shortfalls or deficiencies.
There are people who may seek to exploit the situation and be alarmist and sensational about it. But the overwhelming majority of water consumers who are satisfied with its treatment and that it is pure to drink will not be alarmed if they are told that its quality fails to match up to standard. My noble friend Lord McIntosh referred to last week's experience of Thames Water Authority. On that

1191
occasion the eight districts that were tested within the area—one of which was Enfield—were below standard. However, in another area all standards were satisfied. There are many ways in which the quality of the water can be affected.
In the amendment we wish to widen the spectrum of the informed consumers. The Minister may reasonably say to me that the provision is costly and unnecessary; and that it is possible to obtain the information by making a telephone call. However, we wish to have a statement of the water quality in the area concerned, and any failure to meet the required standards should be issued with the demand.
If the Minister is unable to accept the amendment, I should like him to say something to encourage the water companies not to be afraid to inform their consumers what they are drinking. I am sure that the undertakers will be able to defend their positions and say that the water is safe to drink. However, I know that the Government wish to improve environmental standards and water is a basic provision. I believe that an educated public will be more on his side than against him. It will be armed with information. The amount of debate which has taken place in the newspapers, on television and in your Lordships' House has increased enormously, and I believe that the public will welcome such intelligence. I believe that they are entitled to it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. The administrative effort involved in adding the information to the demand for charges will add marginally to the administrative cost. If the water is already "wholesome"—to use the word contained in Clause 52—there is no need to state it. If it is not, it should not be supplied, and the water undertaker will be in breach of his duty if he does so. The word "wholesome" is not used in the amendment. I do not complain about that because it refers to Section 52 where the word is used. I cannot find the word "wholesome" defined in the Bill. If water is heavily chlorinated in order to kill bacteria, for example, does that make it wholesome? I am not sure. If water is so hard that it interferes with one's dishwasher, does that make it wholesome? My general feeling is that this amendment should not be accepted.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as we have explained in earlier discussions, full details of all analytical data for an area taken in accordance with the water quality regulations will be freely available to customers. The results will show any breaches of the standards. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that the imposition of a requirement on undertakers regularly to send out all this unsolicited information to every customer regardless of whether they want it would be a costly and time consuming exercise and thus quite unjustified. But we are not alone in that we are anxious that customers are fully aware that they can easily obtain this information if they want it and
1192
where they can obtain it. We are therefore drafting a regulation requiring undertakers to notify customers when sending out their bills where detailed information on the quality of water supplied may be inspected or obtained. In this way anyone who wishes to have specific information about their water quality will know how to go about obtaining it. Clause 53(4) as drafted already allows the regulations on information provision to make such a requirement.
We agree with the noble Lord's sentiments that information on drinking water quality should be fully and freely available to customers and our regulations will ensure this. Indeed, we believe that they are the most comprehensive in Europe in making this information available. Not only will there be information about compliance with the standards but there will also be information about progress on compliance programmes, and about the quality in supply zones, at service reservoirs and treatment works. A requirement to notify customers where and how they can obtain all this information would be a neat and simply way of meeting noble Lord's concerns.
On the last amendment which the noble Lord debated with me I played a very straight bat. On this occasion I offer him something to catch.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he used the words "freely available". Under COPA it is the present custom for water authorities to require a charge for extra costs incurred in providing such information. Did the Minister mean free?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, I did mean free.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister because we are not apart on the central issue. That is to oblige water undertakers to make available to their consumers information about the quality of the water. However, the Minister said that, by regulation, he would oblige water undertakers to give information on the demand about where consumers can obtain the details but not the actual details.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made heavy weather of the extra costs involved. It is this Government, which he supports, which over the past few years have laid duty after duty on local authorities about the amount of information which they must include on their rate demands. This has applied whether the local authority liked it or not or whether the individual who received it wanted it or not. The Government have never hesitated in imposing upon local authorities the duty of making detailed information available. This amendment is saying that if the information is correct and not alarmist, the people who are paying for the water should be told where there is a deficiency in the standard.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, talked about standards. These are EC standards, and there is no argument but that the Government accept them.

1193
They acknowledge that there are some deficiencies. I am saying that the people paying for the water are entitled to know of those.
I understand from the Minister that in future when I receive my water demand it will say that if I want further information I can obtain it from the office in Waltham Cross or by ringing a certain telephone number. The overwhelming number of consumers who are satisfied with water which is wholesome will not want to do that. They will not need to. I am saying that there is no extra cost involved.
I am not sure whether the Minister said something about a duty of reporting progress towards compliance. That is a very important matter. We have moved earlier amendments to have written on the face of the Bill that the consumer is entitled to information which shows what is being done. I am satisfied with the general answer that the Minister has given but it is important that the consumer should be told what progress his water supplier has made towards complying with the standards. Could the Minister say a little more about that matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think that I can add very much to what I said to the noble Lord. I have given him a very full answer. There will be more information than the noble Lord originally asked for in this amendment. It will be made available under regulations. This will enable the customer to receive a great deal of detail. If the noble Lord wants all of that detail enclosed with the half-yearly water bill, it would be considerably more than that which we receive with the rates, because we are talking of a very comprehensive set of details that will be defined under Clause 65.
I hope that the noble Lord will reflect upon this matter and read what I have said. I do not think that I can help him further without knowing the specific information that he requires.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I think that he has gone as far as he can. I do not accept that the information will be in such detail that it cannot be included in the demand. The Government did not hesitate in forcing local authorities to give additional information in the past. I believe that the customer is only going to be told where he can obtain the information.
I have news for the Minister. I am certain that where this information is freely available the local press and local radio stations will look upon it as their duty to draw the attention of their readers or listeners to the detail of individual entitlements. That may serve the purpose as well as this amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that this is an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Report stage of this Bill at five minutes past eight. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
1194
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
7.05 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS LOCKWOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Removal from registers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—

("(a) that—

(i) there is a dwellinghouse on the land and, if and so far as the land is not the site of that dwellinghouse, it is ancillary to that dwellinghouse; or

(ii) the land is ancillary to a dwellinghouse which is not on the land; and

(b) that the requirements of paragraph (a) above have been satisfied at all times since 5th August 1945.").

The noble Baroness said: Not for the first time today I have cause to be grateful to my noble friend the Minister and his officers for the enormous consideration which has been given to this Bill between Second Reading and this stage. Most of the points that were raised at Second Reading have been considered. Noble Lords will see that the amendments on the Marshalled List are the result of that work.
Amendment No. 1 clarifies the position of land which is ancillary to a dwelling, whether or not that dwelling is situated on the site. The substance of what will be the rewritten Clause 1 and subsection (2) remains the same. The scope of this Bill is therefore not extended by this amendment. We have clarified the position.
At Committee stage there was confusion about a dwelling and the garden. The word "curtilage" was mentioned. However, this rewritten subsection clarifies the position. I am reasonably confident that the wording is right, although there has been some difficulty in arriving at that wording. I should like to put on record that the changing of this subsection of Clause 1 in no way inhibits or thwarts the progress towards presenting a major Bill on common lands at some future date. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To the best of my knowledge and understanding of the matter I accept entirely what the noble Baroness has said. She is aware that there are those outside the House who take a great interest int his matter, who are very keen that nothing more than the minimum should be taken at this stage, pending the major Bill. The Minister will recall that in a sense the provision was

1195
a manifesto commitment. We are waiting to see whether this tidies up the matter.
I shall read with care what the Minister says. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. There are other stages in this Chamber. It is very important that the noble Baroness should have taken great care to ensure that there is no scope for people to misinterpret what has been done. Neither should it be used as a peg to argue other issues in a procrastinating way in another place. I am not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but it is absolutely crucial that one avoids that possibility. I have heard what the noble Baroness has said and I raise no objection to the clarification.
Lord Monk Bretton: I welcome Amendment No. 1. It will deal with what we referred to colloquially at Second Reading as the garden-only case. I am quite sure that that is all to the good. I am very pleased to see that something has been done to clarify this situation. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I undertook at Second Reading to look into the matter of whether the garden-only situation was adequately covered and to take appropriate action after discussion with the sponsors. The amendment gives effect to that undertaking and removes the ambiguity that previously existed.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about a Bill and its arrival. I cannot add to what I said on Second Reading a month ago. It remains our aim, as we stated in our response in January 1987 to the Common Land Forum Report, to introduce comprehensive legislation based broadly on the forum's recommendation at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits. The situation remains to day as it was a month ago.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Lord sits down, the arguments until about six months ago were that there was, if not dispute, doubt as to what should be included in the Bill. Refreshing my memory on my feet, my understanding is that the major objections to the thrust of the new legislation were clarified. That is therefore out of the way and the Government are simply saying that it is now a question of the management of parliamentary time. There is no issue of substance but merely a question of finding time.
This Bill has gone through quickly and I appreciate that it contains only one tiny element of a major Bill that is to come forward. The Minister will understand that there is likely to be considerable all-party support for that Bill when it arrives. If these few words encourage him to produce that Bill sooner rather than later, then our purpose will have been served.
Lord Hesketh: I think I should clarify the situation. Not all the outstanding issues have been completely resolved, and that is part of the reason why we have not yet been able to consider a firm date.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 1, line 27, after ("relates") insert ("or in the case of any part of it").
Page 1, line 29, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, that part of it.").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move both amendments together.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 give the power to the Commons Commissioner or his agent to consider part of a person's land or property. It is reasonable to assume that, with the Bill as drafted, when an application is made, for example, for deregistration and it involves a house, some land, and perhaps some other land over which there is doubt on whether it is ancillary, it is likely that if any one part of it does not conform and is not consistent with the requirements of the Bill, the whole package could be rejected. These two amendments allow the commissioner to consider any part of an application. In other words, perhaps two parts accepted and one part rejected.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton also had a particular concern and I believe that these two amendments go a long way towards meeting that concern. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("() Section 17(2) of the said Act of 1965 (procedure of Commons Commissioners) shall apply to a matter referred to a Commissioner under this section as it applies to a matter referred under that Act.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment simply takes Section 17(2) of the 1965 Act and applies it to this Bill. It is a purely procedural piece of legislation. Again, it enables the Commons Commissioners to refer an application to another commissioner. Perhaps I may quote the appropriate part of Section 17(2) of the 1965 Act. The reason why I wish to include this part in the Bill is that it refers only to the 1965 Act and we wish it to apply to the present Bill. It reads:
"Any matter referred to under this Act to a Commons Commissioner shall be dealt with by such one of the Commissioners as the Chief Commons Commissioner may determine, and that Commissioner may sit with an assessor selected by the Chief Commons Commissioner from the panel appointed under this section".
It is purely a procedural amendment designed to bring this Bill into line with the 1965 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 2, line 6, after ("also") insert ("(a)").
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("(b) require any notice of such an objection to be accompanied by such documents, statements or declarations as the regulations may prescribe; and

1197
(c) require a registration authority, on receiving such a notice, to take such steps as the regulations may prescribe for informing the public of the objection.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, with the leave of the Committee, I move these amendments together.
The amendments give power to the Secretary of State to make regulations, and in particular to make regulations notifying the public. The whole purpose of having this Bill before the Chamber at the moment is because this amendment was not included in the 1965 Act. It seems to me that among all the regulations that need to be made by the Secretary of State he must make a regulation that requires notification to be given not only to owners of land but also the kind of notification that one would make with any planning application. Therefore, these are particularly key amendments. Although regulations were made under the 1965 Act, this was a glaring omission and I hope that these two amendments will receive support. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Line 3, leave out ("is") to ("; and") in line 4 and insert ("a dwellinghouse or which is ancillary to a dwellinghouse and in respect of which that requirement has been satisfied at all times since 5th August 1945").
The noble Baroness said: This is the final amendment to the Bill. It is a consequential amendment making the title consistent with the amended Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.19 p.m.
Report received.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.20 to 8.5 p.m.]

Water Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 54[Offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 64, line 15, at end insert ("or by the Customer Services Committee for the area affected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of this amendment is to try to give a little more power to local areas as regards the right to prosecute an
undertaker supplying water that is unfit for human consumption. When this matter was considered in Committee the Government were successful in a Division over whether anyone could prosecute an undertaker for supplying that water. However, this amendment means that the customer services committees of the local areas will be allowed to undertake prosecutions on behalf of local people. The consumers will then have a local representative capable of taking some positive action as regards someone who has provided water that is unfit for human consumption. I suggest that the customer services committee is a far more suitable body as it will mean that local people will not have to go to the far too bureaucratic machinery in Whitehall and will thus be more in contact with their desires and aspirations and also with local problems. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this seems to be an eminently sensible amendment. Anything that can be seen by local people to be giving them an entrée into what will be a radically changed situation is to be welcomed. I take note of what the Minister and his colleages have said that there will be little change except improvement. Nevertheless, there will be a great deal of apprehension and I believe that this amendment will go a long way to help to ease that apprehension out of the minds of a great many water users.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, it seems to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut that one has to leave prosecution solely to the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions. I should think that this is one way in which at local level people can react and get others to act on their behalf when a disaster occurs such as that which happened recently in Cornwall and elsewhere in the western region. I hope very much that the Government will consider this amendment seriously.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect if Amendment No. 109 would be to enable the customer services committee for the area affected to institute proceedings where it believes a water undertaker has supplied water unfit for human consumption. Clause 54 as it stands restricts the power to prosecute to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. We discussed a similar amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill and while I understand the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in tabling this amendment I must reiterate what I said then. The Government believe that the power to prosecute should rest with the public authority which is charged with enforcing quality standards. For public supplies the Secretary of State is the enforcing body. The prosecution power in Clause 54 is one of the weapons he can use to carry out that responsibility.
One of the key tasks of the customers services committees will be to investigate matters raised by individual customers and they will have an important role in following up customer complaints about drinking water quality. However, they will have no right to prosecute undertakers for failure to

1199
meet level of service standards with regard to their other duties. Therefore to give CSCs the right to prosecute under Clause 54 would give them an unprecedented power not echoed in the rest of the Bill.
The CSCs will try to resolve complaints with the undertaker and in the case of drinking water complaints will consult the relevant local authority. Where a CSC considers that the undertaker is unreasonable it can then refer the matter to the director general. To give them an independent power of prosecution would be wholly inappropriate to the structure of customer protection in the Bill whereby they report to and advise the director general.
Where a drinking water complaint was referred by a CSC to the director general then certainly where it concerned the possibility of water having been supplied unfit for human consumption he would be expected to refer it to the Secretary of State for possible prosecution. It is of course open to a customer to complain to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The power of prosecution under Clause 54 extends to him as well as to the Secretary of State. He represents the public interest and his inclusion in this clause enables the public to complain to someone other than the Secretary of State. Indeed it is open for anyone to request either of the prosecuting bodies to institute proceedings against an undertaker.
Supplying water unfit for human consumption is a very serious matter; hence the penalties for doing so may be substantial. I can assure noble Lords that the Government would not shirk from their responsibilities in prosecuting an undertaker under Clause 54 if it did indeed supply water unfit for human consumption. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say more about the powers of customer service committees before matters are passed higher up the chain to the director or to the Secretary of State? Local people may persistently put forward evidence on which no action is taken. The Minister says that the director will be one stage removed from the Secretary of State. The noble Lord should be encouraging the local committees to be vigilant and to use their opportunities to put evidence before those who are above them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the customer service committees will report directly to the director general. They will have an important job, which is to be vigilant. We expect them to be so, as the noble Lord also wishes. On that point I feel that there is agreement on both sides of the House.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I still would have liked to see some local representation and someone lower down the scale being able to take this action. However, having heard what the Minister has said, I can see that we shall not get that concession. I can only hope that the bodies in question will be rather
1200
more active and vigilant than they have been in the past. There is considerable room for improvement. I am not prepared to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 55 [Provision of water where piped supplies insufficient or unwholesome]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 109ZA:
Page 64, line 35, after ("premises") insert ("in replacement of a private supply to those premises")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 55 is concerned with the provision of water where piped supplies are insufficient or unwholesome. Subsection (1) is concerned with circumstances in which it is not practicable to supply water in pipes but where it is practicable to supply water other than through pipes. Where the water is inadequate in quantity or too unwholesome for life or health the local authority may notify the undertaker of the danger to health and require it to provide a supply other than in pipes.
Under subsection (2) a local authority that gives notice in that way has to pay all the costs. It will be noted that subsection (1) does not specify why the water should be insufficient or unwholesome, whether it is through the fault of the undertaker or for any other reason. In effect this means that the only risk to a water undertaker which fails to provide an adequate supply of wholesome water is a fine of £5 a day. On the insistence of the local authority this supply has to be met other than in pipes—presumably by tankers. The local authority has to pay the costs but does not have any special resources from which to find the money. The charges therefore fall on the local residents.
Under our amendment this extraordinary provision that the local authority should always pay the costs of the replacement supply is restricted to a private supply. Where we are dealing with a former private supply what in effect we have is a new public supply. It seems just about reasonable that the costs of that should be borne by the consumers. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, called this a private private supply. However, where the failure is within the public supply, surely, unless it can be shown to the contrary, the failure is the responsibility of the undertaker. It is the undertaker's failure, and the cost of the tanker or the replacement supply ought not to be charged to the local authority and to the local authority's ratepayers.
I said that local authorities have no resources for this purpose. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that resources may be available. I understand that Clause 125 of the Local Government and Housing Bill now before another place provides for reimbursement of costs of this kind. Will Clause 125, or whatever clause it turns out to be when the Bill reaches us, be applicable in this case? We seem to have another case where the privatised water companies are to be unduly protected against what would otherwise be properly described as commercial risks. The risks,
which are the only justification for profits, ought to be charged to the undertakers and not to local authorities and thence to local people. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have studied this clause carefully because paragraph 76C of Schedule 22 has almost identical words applying to Scotland. The supply in question could come from a well. It might be found by the local authority environmental health department to be unfit to drink. In that case the water undertaker, or in the case of Scotland the water board, might be approached to supply water. As the clause is worded the local authority may pass on the cost to the person concerned; it may bear the cost itself; or it may ask the undertaker to carry out a certain amount of the work.
I envisage the case of a hill village in Wales which draws a good supply from a well. The well then runs dry or becomes polluted. Water does not run uphill and the undertaker may well have a difficult job to get a pipe to go up to that hill village under any sort of pressure without putting in a pump. That, so far as I can see, is the reason for the provision in this clause. With very great respect, I argue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this issue and I say that his amendment is unnecessary.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may expand upon the background relating to this amendment. Clause 55 provides that, in certain cases, where it is not practicable at reasonable cost for a water undertaker to provide or maintain a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes to particular premises through its pipes, it may be obliged to provide a supply of water by alternative means. This would normally mean providing a supply of water by means of a tanker or standpipe. A local authority is required to notify the undertaker of premises in its area where the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing water supply is such as to be a danger to health. The local authority would be liable to meet the undertaker's charges for providing an alternative supply but would be able to recover them from the owner or occupier provided with the supply of water.
As my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained when we discussed this clause in Committee, the circumstances when an undertaker would be required to provide a supply of water other than by pipes would generally involve the failure of a private water supply. A private supply may become unwholesome or insufficient for domestic purposes and thereby constitute a danger to health. Because of the location of the properties served by the private supply it may not be feasible for the undertaker to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes by pipe. In these situations the undertaker would be required to provide a supply of water by alternative means, usually by standpipe or tanker.
The purpose of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is to limit the ability of the undertaker to recover his expenses in providing an alternative supply to those cases where the supply was necessary as a result of the failure of a private supply to those premises.
1202
The amendment is wholly unnecessary. Any concern that the undertaker would be able to recover his costs in providing an alternative supply as a result of his failure to maintain a piped supply is misplaced as I will explain. Subsection (l)(a) provides that where it is not practicable at reasonable cost for an undertaker to maintain a supply of water by pipes a local authority is able to require the undertaker to provide a supply by alternative means.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will permit me to intervene here. Subsection (l)(a) does not say "to maintain", it says:
"to provide or maintain such a supply".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may continue with my response and return later to the point made by the noble Lord.
The provision in subsection (l)(a) is essentially to cover cases of temporary supply failure—for instance, due to frozen pipes—when it would be unreasonable to require the undertaker to lay replacement pipes in order to maintain the piped supply. The undertaker would not pass on his charges in these circumstances since the owner or occupier would already be paying for a supply of water. Indeed, the provision in subsection (2) enabling a water undertaker to recover its costs is limited to cases where the undertaker is unable to provide a piped supply and is required by a local authority to provide a supply by alternative means. It does not extend to those cases where the water undertaker is unable to maintain a piped supply and is required to provide a supply by alternative means.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in relation to subsection (1)(a), the words "supply" or "maintain" are the alternatives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this argument is going from bad to worse. What Clause 55(l)(a) says is,
"to provide or maintain such a supply".
The noble Earl rests his case on the fact that subsection (2) then says:
"Where under subsection (1) above a local authority require the provision by a water undertaker of a supply of water to any premises",
and so on. What is the distinction between "provide or maintain" in subsection (1) and "provision" in subsection (2)? Is the noble Earl saying that subsection (2) relates only to a temporary matter and that it is provision only for a short time? Further, if it is for a short time, how short is that time? There is a difference in the wording but it is very difficult to work out the distinction between the words. I wonder whether the noble Earl can help us on the issue. My specific question is this: if "provision" means for a shorter time than "provide or maintain", then how short a time will that be?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is provision in subsection (l)(a). It lists the alternatives as provision or maintenance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that we are getting anywhere on this issue. I

1203
say that because subsection (1) specifies "provide or maintain", whereas subsections (2) and (3) refer to the "provision" of supply. If subsections (2) and (3) are referring to a short-term provision and therefore the burden on the local authority and on the occupiers is limited in that way, then the Government's argument may have some force. However, if that is so, the Government should write to me between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings to explain the reason for the wording. In my view the wording is somewhat obscure. Perhaps the noble Earl will agree either to write to me on the matter or to discuss it with me between now and a later stage.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is quite correct when he talks about obscurity here. However, in the circumstances, I undertake to write to him on the matter between now and Third Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are major concessions which we are extracting from the Government and we fully appreciate them. In the circumstances, without in any way claiming to understand the phraseology of the clause or in any way going back on my accusation of obscurity; and moreover, without accepting also that it would be right for the local authority and the occupiers to pay the cost of replacing piped supply which is not available because of the fault of the undertaker, I think my only option now is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 56 [General functions of local authorities in relation to water quality]:
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 65, line 34, at end insert ("; and")
(c) the matters which should be taken into account in the exercise of those powers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Renton moved an amendment to Clause 57 which would have required local authorities, when exercising their powers under that clause, to take account of the rights and obligations of the relevant persons under contracts or agreements regarding private water supplies. In reply my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave a sympathetic response and the amendment was withdrawn.
The purpose of this amendment is to elicit a response from the Government—if this amendment be not accepted—as to whether a direction will be given to local authorities (with which they will be required to comply under Clause 56(4)) when they exercise their remedial powers given to them under Clause 57 in cases where the private water supply is not satisfactory.
My noble friend Lord Caithness has been kind enough to write to me and to other noble Lords who voiced their concern in the matter, and I am
1204
encouraged to believe that a direction which may take account of that concern may be made. Therefore I look forward to hearing what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We are grateful to my noble friends for the consideration that they have given to this matter since the Committee stage, and for letting us have a letter containing their views. What was suggested in the letter was acceptable up to a point, but I should have thought that it was better to write into the Bill the words of this simple amendment, which is much shorter than the one we moved in Committee. In saying that, I ask my noble friend to bear in mind two matters in particular, without going over all the ground we covered fully in Committee.
The first point is that a departmental directive is not part of the law. It can sometimes be prayed in aid when a dispute comes to court, but it is not part of the law. It does not create in itself any obligation upon the local authority to take account of the matters which are relevant; but by writing that simple paragraph into the statute we can achieve the same as a ministerial directive, with the satisfaction of knowing that it becomes part of the law and is enforceable.
The other point is that there is provision in the Bill for an individual landowner, or other person concerned, to appeal to the Secretary of State if he is not satisfied with the way that the local authority has handled the matter. However, appeals involve administrative costs to the Government as well as to the individual, and to the extent that appeals can be saved it would be a great advantage. By making a local authority take those matters into account we may avoid the need for further appeals, so from both the public and the private point of view there would be an advantage.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a simple one which should be acceptable. If it is not acceptable, I hope that my noble friend will be able to produce something which will have the same effect.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand my noble friends' reasons for tabling this amendment but we consider the points that they raise to be fully covered by the existing words in the subsection. Subsection (4) states that directions may be given concerning the cases and circumstances in which authorities are or are not to exercise those powers and the manner in which those powers are exercised. I am advised that that fully provides for directions to be given requiring local authorities to have regard to existing contracts, licences and agreements governing private supplies when requiring improvements to any such supplies. I have written to my noble friends, as they kindly said. I confirm my undertaking that such a direction will be given and to consult on its terms.
My noble friend Lord Renton raised two matters that he asked me to take into account. I note what he said. I ask him to take into account one matter in return. There are other provisions in the Bill

1205
enabling the Secretary of State to make directions, drafted in terms somewhat similar to this subsection. If the amendment were made here, it could throw doubt on the scope of those other provisions. My noble friend, with his legal training, will understand more clearly than I do the implications of that. I feel sure that the right way is to proceed as I have said. I renew my confirmation of the undertaking that a direction will be given.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving that undertaking. It would be an advantage and helpful if a direction were to be supplemented by a circular giving more details to local authorities. My noble friend has also said that he will consult the relevant interests about the direction and, I hope, about a circular as well. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 109AA:
Page 66, line 10, at end insert—
("(e) provide for the notification by the authority to the Secretary of State of any additional costs, to the extent that those costs are not met from revenue, arising from this section, for the purposes of the payment to the authority of an equivalent amount in grant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment returns to issues which were raised by my noble friends Lady White and Lord Graham of Edmonton when we were discussing the Motion that Clause 56 stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was then pressed on how costs might be recovered where they had fallen on local authorities as a result of complying with requirements laid upon them in Clause 56. The noble Lord said, at col. 1344 of Hansard for 18th May, that the rate support grant levels would need to take account of extra costs on local authorities arising from the Bill, and that there would be additional revenue from testing of private supplies.
The amendment is tabled to enable the Minister to confirm that his response to questions, of which he may not have had notice, reflected the position under the clause. The amendment suggests that it would be helpful for the Bill to contain a provision whereby there is a standard notification procedure by local authorities to the Secretary of State of additional costs incurred, and that they should be calculated less any revenue arising under the section from the private supply, sampling and so forth.
The amendment assumes that, as the Minister stated, the authority would then be entitled to an equivalent amount in grant. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the position, as is understood. His comments would be welcome on the process by which that information will be incorporated in the rate support grant calculations. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a local authority to notify him of any additional non-revenue costs arising from Clause 56 so that he could provide a grant to cover those costs. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will not be
1206
surprised to hear that the Government do not support the amendment.
I should like to take issue with him on several counts. First, I question whether any such additional costs will arise as a result of this clause. Local authorities have for many years had a duty to check on the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies in their area. I quote from the Public Health Act 1936:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to take from time to time such steps as may be necessary for ascertaining the sufficiency and wholesomeness of the water supplies within their district".
That provision was re-enacted in Section 11 (1) of the Water Act 1973 and reappears in subsection (1) of this clause. The changes in wording in the Bill from the 1973 Act are solely for clarification.
Local authorities must also continue: to inform the water undertaker when the water is unwholesome or insufficient. In addition, they must notify water undertakers if there is a general deterioration in the quality of a supply. The 1973 Act power to refer disputes with the undertaker to the Secretary of State is replaced by a duty to notify the Secretary of State if they are not satisfied with the remedial action proposed. None of that will involve additional expenditure.
Indeed, local authorities will be able to exercise their duties much more easily in future because of the steps we are taking to remove vague generalities about wholesomeness and substitute very precise legal standards. If the water complies with the standards, it is wholesome. If it fails to do so, it will be unwholesome unless a special relaxation has been authorised. Water undertakers will be required by regulations to provide regular reports to each local authority on the quality of their supplies. Those will have to be set out in a prescribed form which shows clearly whether the water is wholesome and whether there has been any deterioration in quality. All this means that no longer will the local authority have any problem in knowing whether water is unwholesome. There can be no dispute about that.
Those provisions will therefore help the local authorities carry out their long-standing functions in the sphere of water quality much more easily and effectively and with consequential cost savings. It is true that some local authorities may spend slightly more time on private supplies, in monitoring and securing improvements to them. However, under Clause 56(6)(d) local authorities may recover expenses reasonably incurred on such functions in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
In the unlikely event of some future Secretary of State imposing costly new burdens on local authorities under his regulation-making powers in this clause they could collectively ask the Secretary of State for an increase in the revenue support grant for that revenue expenditure which is not recoverable by such charges or fees or from other income or grant. That would form part of the annual discussions on revenue support grant for all local authority services. I hope I have convinced noble Lords that the amendment is quite superfluous. For

1207
the reasons I have laid before your Lordships' House, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for that reply, dismal though it is, in response to what we regard as a fairly modest amendment. If I may say so, the reply sounds as though the discussion on Clause 56 stand part never took place, because that was the discussion which gave rise to the amendment. We were frankly seeking to put into the Bill, quite fairly, the gist of what the Minister then told the Committee. We now have a different situation in which an attempt to bring this into the Bill is resisted on the grounds that local authorities already have that duty and that the tasks which they have to undertake, as regards the Bill, are on balance lighter than the duties which they already have. Presumably if they are lighter, then the task of enforcing those lighter duties will be less costly than at present.
I think that local authorities will take note of that and will wonder, as I wonder, how it can be that at one stage of the Bill we proceed on assurances that there is a possibility of an offset against costs less income from private work. Yet at another stage of the Bill we discover that there is no possibility whatsoever. With those remarks which I think contain something of the disappointment which we feel and which local authorities will feel, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 60 [Assessors for the enforcement of water quality]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No.109AB:
Page 70, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
("(1) The Director shall for the purpose of this section appoint persons to act on his behalf as assessors of drinking water quality in relation to—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I move Amendment No. 109AB and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 109AC and 109AD.
These amendments return to the issue of the drinking water quality inspectors. It was debated particularly in cols. 1355 and 1356 of Hansard at the Committee stage on 18th May. In that debate, the Government did not wish to go into any level of detail about the composition of what they are now calling the drinking water quality inspectorate. It is however clear that these inspectors or assessors will be under close Department of Environment control. The Minister was not able to give further details as to whether they would be based in Marsham Street or have a regional structure.
The amendments therefore attempt to fill the gap as well as postulating alternatives. Amendment No. 109AB proposes that the drinking water quality assessors will be appointed by the director rather than the Secretary of State, to give them a measure of independence and ensure professional integrity. The amendments go on to require the director to
1208
establish local divisions for the purposes of assessing drinking water quality. A divisional structure will be necessary for the inspectorate in any case, if only because the plcs will themselves be regional undertakings. Most important, they will give the individuals appointed the right to report directly to the director on any occurrence or on the reasonable apprehension of such an occurrence or a matter which in their opinion may lead to a breach of the drinking water quality standards.
We believe it right to divorce the enforcement function from central government so the Minister should at least accept that an independent professional team of scientifically trained assessors is the minimum which public confidence requires in the present state of uncertainty about the quality of Britain's water. I hope that the Government will accept that an independent reporting right for someone with professional scientific status is desirable. It is also hoped that the Government will be able to move some way towards this amendment, particularly since their thinking in this area appears to be still under development. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we return to the subject on which I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at an earlier stage of the Bill questioned me as to whether a lot of gentlemen in bowler hats would be emerging on a daily basis from Marsham Street in order to inquire into matters concerning drinking water.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And celluloid collars.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord is entirely correct. These amendments would require the Director General of Water Services to appoint technical assessors of drinking water quality, instead of the Secretary of State. They would also require him to establish local divisions of assessors and enable the assessors to report to the director on any breach or likely breach of the drinking water quality standards.
I have already explained in Committee the reasons why the Secretary of State and not the director general is in our opinion the right person to have responsibility for assessing drinking water quality. The Secretary of State is responsible for the quality and monitoring regulations, for agreeing improvement programmes and for enforcing compliance under Clause 20. The director general is concerned essentially with economic regulation such as the charges an undertaker may make. To give him responsibility in this area of public health alongside the Secretary of State would greatly modify the nature of his work and lead to overlap and confusion with the Secretary of State's responsibilities.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the technical assessors should not be lost in the vastnesses of the Department of the Environment. They do not need to have an arm's length relationship with those who exercise political responsibility, so that they can exercise their professional judgment fully. This is certainly the Government's intention and we are now considering precisely how that arm's length relationship should be formed. We have for example the options of a

1209
free standing agency, or an inspectorate within the department rather like Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Whatever the decision, I can assure your Lordships' House that the body will have a definite and distinct form of its own.
As I have said, we are currently considering the constitution and composition of this body, and that includes manpower, location, and relationships with local authorities and others. But first it has been necessary to decide on its tasks and this has been partly dependent on the drafting of the water quality regulations on which a consultation paper was published in February. These regulations are being finalised and it is now possible to turn our attention to the establishment of the body which will supervise their implementation.
The inspectors' main job will be to carry out a thorough technical audit of each undertaker's compliance with the water quality regulations. They will monitor the progress of improvement programmes. They will of course check for failures to comply with standards. They will also check for deterioration in quality. They will have to assess the adequacy of the undertaker's sampling and analysis arrangements and the quality of laboratory results. If they are not satisfied on any of these counts they will obviously need to discuss corrective action with the undertaker. They will advise the Secretary of State on the use of his enforcement and prosecution powers. They will also need to produce regular published reports on their assessments. Clearly a considerable amount of information will have to be assessed by the inspectors, for which computing and statistical expertise will be required.
We have still to take decisions on the constitution and organisation of this body and that includes, as I said earlier, location, size, relationships with other bodies and extent to which work will be done by consultants.
I apologise for not being more forthcoming at this stage. I hope it will be possible to say more in the next few weeks. For the reasons that I have put before your Lordships' House, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will find it possible to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, for the detail which it contained and the promise of a further instalment to come. This matter is of considerable importance to the function of assessing water quality in the context of the Bill.
I note that the main plank of the Minister's refusal to accept any change from the present arrangement whereby the Secretary of State will have responsibility for this service to one in which the Director General of Water Services will take it over, is that to do so would unnecessarily complicate the Bill. It would result in duplication because elsewhere in the Bill the Secretary of State has responsibilities of this kind which would be at variance with the switch of his inspectorate from his oversight to one in which they were responsible to the Director General of Water Services. That point is taken and seems to me to be reasonable.
1210
I welcome in particular the assurance by the Minister that the Secretary of State intends an arm's length relationship with his inspectorate. When further announcements are made concerning this matter, perhaps the Minister will make a point of telling us—and the world at large—in so far as appointments are made to this important body rather than the use of consultants, whether the appointments will be within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission rather than of the Secretary of State himself. We feel that a Civil Service Commission appointment would be preferable because of the importance which is being laid on the independence of the body, even though it is under the control of the Secretary of State. I have also noted the other functions which the Minister has kindly outlined to me. On the basis of that information, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109AC and 109AD not moved.]
Clause 62 [Regulations for preventing contamination, waste etc. and with respect to water fittings]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 109B:
Page 72, leave out line 23 and insert ("any water at any time after it has left the pipes of a water undertaker for the purpose of being supplied by that undertaker to any premises;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move Amendment No. 109B. Clause 62 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the prevention of contamination and waste of water. Amendment No. 109B is a technical amendment to make it clear that the regulations are intended to provide for the prevention of contamination and waste of water in pipes for which the consumer is responsible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No.109C:
Page 72, line 28, at end insert—
("(1A) No cost arising from the remedying of any contamination or other defect to which subsection (l)(b) above relates shall fall on the consumer except in circumstances where such contamination or other defect arises as a consequence of a defect in a pipe for which he is responsible").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 109C standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey who dealt with this matter at an earlier stage. As the Minister is aware, there has been some correspondence between my noble friend and his department. We look upon this amendment as clarifying regulations under Clause 62 which deal with contamination in pipes. The amendment would not place any cost upon the consumer in respect of contamination of pipes, except in circumstances where the defect arose as a consequence of a problem in a pipe for which the consumer was responsible.
I am certain that in his zealousness to protect the interests of the undertakers in the early stages—a number of illustrations of that have been drawn to

1211
his attention—he will understand that we are equally anxious to ensure that he takes advantage of every opportunity to protect the interests of the consumer where there is evidence of unfairness and a burden of cost upon the consumer. We think that that is a possibility. Such occurrences could be costly; and in the interests of justice and Tightness we believe this amendment is justified. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I explained when I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, recently, subsection (l)(b) of Clause 62 provides for regulations to be made to secure that water that has been supplied to any premises is not contaminated, or its quality prejudiced before it is used. For water to have been supplied by the undertaker, it has to have left the pipes of the undertaker and be in the pipes for which the consumer is responsible. I hope that provides the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, seeks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am not sure whether that provides me with the reassurance I seek. I accept that the Minister believes what he has said should satisfy the point I am making. Is the Minister saying that in the case of pipes which are the responsibility of the consumer, any hurt which is suffered as a result of consuming water which went through those pipes where contamination was found, will not result in a charge on the consumer? However, if the contamination occurs in pipes which are not the responsibility of the consumer, is the Minister saying that the undertaker will have to bear any costs that arise from that situation? I hope the Minister can state that that is the case, as I cannot repeat it myself. If he can confirm that that is the general gist of what he was saying, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is correct. However I shall want to see what the Official Report states, and then I shall write to the noble Lord in case I am incorrect.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that we are both agreed that we shall read the Official Report and examine what we have both said. I am sure we have both meant the same thing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend sure that he knows what he means before he reads what he has said?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I believe the answer is in the pipeline! I shall just have to wait until I examine the pipe. I shall pipe down and beg leave to withdraw the amendment!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [General Sewerage functions]:
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 78, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) It shall be the duty of a sewerage undertaker in performing its duty under subsection (1) above to have regard—

(a) to its existing and likely future obligations to allow for the discharge of trade effluent into its public sewers; and

1212

(b) to the need to provide for the disposal of trade effluent which is so discharged.

(1B) In subsection (1A) above "trade effluent" has the same meaning as in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for his kind consideration in correspondence, and for his department's help in redrafting my amendment. I shall not here further dilate on my reasons for this amendment, which I gave in detail both on Second Reading and when moving an amendment to the same effect in Committee, save to say that industry—and especially those companies with no other practicable means of disposing of consented trade effluent, except through the sewerage system—could be severely handicapped by the Bill in its present form. The amendment merely seeks to preserve the present situation as provided in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, clearly the undertakers cannot ignore the need to provide for trade effluent. However, there could be problems with the undertakers if an industrialist can demand additional sewage treatment capacity, and if the undertakers were obliged to receive this additional effluent. Environmental protection can only be obtained by the control of emissions into the sewage system. There are certain serious contaminants that cannot be abstracted from the sewage sludge once they are present. It will be increasingly imperative for this country to meet the international obligations to which it has agreed, to be able to control the composition of sewage sludge; and in particular to eradicate pollutants from it.
It is therefore important that there should be a clear duty on the discharger to control the qualities of effluents. There should be no possibility of overwhelming a sewage system and of creating an adverse and difficult disposal of sewage sludge by giving industrialists free access to the system.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister understand that there are situations where industrialists could be assisted more than it appears they are at present in order to ensure that the effluent which they discharge is not likely to cause the problems that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, is addressing? The other day I attended a conference of abattoir owners. They discharge effluent which is perhaps at times of a particularly obnoxious nature. Those abattoir owners form an essential and crucial sector of the community. They are particularly concerned about their responsibilities as they play a part in the food chain. Their concern is that grants are made available by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for a range of things. They drew my attention to the grants which are available to farmers from MAFF for storage tanks, anaerobic digesters, treatment plants, manure stores, disposable facilities, safety fencing and other matters. I told the abattoir owners that I might have an opportunity to raise legitimately such concerns. That opportunity has now arisen.

1213
If the Government are serious about trying to guard 101 per cent. against the possibility of something going wrong, they should be able to look sympathetically at the problems of people like abattoir owners who face the problem of sewage and effluent disposal as part of their daily lives. I am sure the Minister will understand that with the regulations of the EC and with the need for abattoirs and other establishments—I speak particularly of abattoirs, however—to match up to the competition that the single market will bring, their budgets will be placed under severe pressure. It may well be that the Government could ease their problems by taking a sympathetic view of the difficulties I have outlined. I should welcome it if the Minister in replying could make some reference to those points.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we feel that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, more clearly defines the general duties under this clause and adds to the provisions concerning trade effluents elsewhere in the Bill, in particular in Schedules 8 and 9. In the light of my noble friend's undertaking, therefore, I am pleased to commend the amendment to your Lordship's House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say that I spoke for a little longer than I might have done in order that his staff in the Box could supply the magic words. The amendment refers to,
"the need to provide for the disposal of trade effluent which is so discharged".
The point which I raised, and to which I believe the Minister has an obligation to reply, is that in the circumstances which I outlined abattoir owners and managers are under an obligation. What can the Minister say to help them to improve the manner in which effluent is discharged? That is a very real point to the farming community if to no one else. I am sure that that is a trigger word which will galvanise the Minister into responding with alacrity.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that in general we expect industry to bear its own costs. I cannot comment on grants by MAFF but I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, even more importantly, will the Minister undertake not only to write to me but also to consult MAFF to see whether there is any possibility of assistance?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order in asking the Minister before he sits down to reply to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who made one or two rather important points. Has the Minister anything to say about what the noble Earl said?
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his kind commendation of my
1214
amendment. With regard to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I believe that the noble Earl misheard one word of what I said earlier. I referred to consented discharges. Quality and quantity form part of the consent. The amendment does not in any way attempt to alter that or to give a totally free hand to industry to put anything it wants down the sewers. It relates only to consented discharges. If the noble Earl is worried about certain things finding their way into the environment it is at the consent stage that that question should be sorted out, not after consent has been given. The amendment merely provides that a sewerage undertaker cannot pick and choose among such consented discharges as he wishes to take because he may be able to make more profit on some than on others.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 110ZA:
Page 79, line 8, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations under this section shall require an undertaker to review annually levels of performance and anticipated performance in relation to the prescribed standards, including,

(a) the physical condition of sewers in their areas, by reference to any current asset management plan;

(b) any potential danger to health in their area, whether arising from blockages, rodent infestation or other causes; and

(c) target levels of performance and investment over the following two years.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords the Minister may recall referring earlier to obligations that would be laid upon undertakers to report progress towards compliance with standards. Perhaps he is in a position to say a little more about that in relation to this amendment. We ask that an obligation should be laid upon an undertaker to review annually levels of performance and anticipated performance in relation to the prescribed standards.
We have gone out of our way to be specific about the matters which are covered by prescribed standards. We are particularly concerned with respect to the state of the sewers in certain parts of the country. I remind the House that in 1986 the Department of the Environment issued a document in which it indicated that 5,000 repairs were made to sewers as a result of collapses and blockages. That was not 5,000 repairs in the course of normal maintenance but 5,000 repairs arising from serious defects. Within the Thames Water area alone 13,000 homes are regularly flooded with raw sewage. In Greater Manchester 36,000 sewerage problems are reported every year. Those are catastrophic occurrences for the individuals involved. They are only the top of the iceberg.
It has been an impossible task for water authorities and local authority agencies over the years to maintain, let alone improve, levels of service and performance standards because of the restrictions on capital and revenue expenditure. We say that there is therefore a paramount need for tight well-defined regulation of the sewerage undertakers

1215
involving detailed specification of required standards of performance and monitoring and control of actual performance. Setting aside the rising standard of expectation or duty resulting from EC directives, I believe that in this enlightened age, which is due partly to the Government's determination to tackle the problem, there is an obligation to match that with legislation.
The amendment also deals in particular with the problem of rats. We ought to recognise that the situation is very serious indeed. We can anticipate a report by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers on rodent infection. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who dealt with this amendment at an earlier stage, had some interesting things to say. He said at col. 1387 of Hansard for 18th May:
"It would be inappropriate to insert a specific duty within a general clause of this nature".
Perhaps the Minister or his colleague who may reply would care to define or redefine the word "inappropriate". The Minister in effect said that it is inappropriate to require provision to ensure that sewerage undertakers take seriously the matter of increasing rodent infestation. Surely he ought not to be able to leave those words unsaid.
At col. 1387 the Minister went on to say:
"It is undeniable that numbers of rats have increased following two fairly mild winters".
The last two winters have been fairly mild. Last winter was the second mildest on record since statistics began to be compiled in 1659; and I do not mean a minute to five! That was 330 years ago. Last winter was the second mildest winter during that period.
That mildness of the winter is undoubtedly a relevant factor. But my evidence is that the reduction in the amount of money that the authorities and local authorities have received has certainly been a factor too. At col. 1387 the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, also said that,
"there is no evidence that poor control within sewers has contributed to this".
When he sees the report to be issued by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, he may have cause to reflect upon those words. A direct relationship will be shown in that report between cuts in funding and the increase in the rodent population.
These are matters of concern. The department and the Minister are far too complacent in dealing with them. They are very worrying and can be frightening to the general public. The Minister should recognise that he is able to do a great deal. He cannot perhaps accept the amendment. But he can be much more helpful in saying what he intends to do to see that the problem is dealt with. There is a serious dereliction of duty so far as concerns sewers. There is also a dereliction of duty so far as concerns tackling the serious problem of rats. The Minister has an obligation at least to put the public's mind at rest by doing all that he can within his powers to ensure that the undertakers tackle the matter vigorously.
The amendment is an attempt to include on the face of the Bill an obligation for undertakers to
1216
report annually on the physical state of their sewers and what they are doing, particularly in respect of investment. The investing public will be interested to know how much the undertakers are obliged to invest in that respect. It may be that the Government are anxious not to lay too many obligations of that kind on the undertakers. However, we do not speak for the investors but for the consumers. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I always try to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but he will understand me when I say that I cannot be of any assistance in trying to legislate an improvement in the weather or a colder winter. The purpose of Amendment No. 110ZA is to amend the regulation-making powers set out in subsection (1) of Clause 68. Clause 68 has two purposes. The first is a reserve power enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations at the director's request establishing certain service requirements which undertakers must meet, as set out in subsection (1). If those requirements are not met, they will amount to breaches of the sewerage undertakers' general duty as set out in Clause 67. The second is to enable regulations to be made by the same procedure to prescribe standards in the day-to-day relations between sewerage undertakers and individual customers as set out in Clause 68(2). That is the guaranteed standards scheme.
Amendment No. 110ZA is intended to refer to the first category of regulations and seeks to require regulations to be made under those powers requiring the undertaker to review annually its levels of performance and its projected performance in relation to the prescribed standards. Those standards are required to include physical condition of assets, risks to health and target levels of performance and investment for the following two years.
The regime that we propose goes much wider than this and is set out in, and operates through, the model instrument of appointment with which your Lordships are familiar. Arrangements for the director general to monitor general standards of performance by the undertakers are provided for in Condition 1 of the model instrument of appointment. That condition also imposes a duty on the undertaker to advise the director general of its intended levels of service, including three key aspects: interruptions to supply, water pressure and foul flooding. Companies will report that performance to the director general each year against the target levels of service that they aim to achieve.
We expect that the undertakers will make every effort to achieve those targets. However, if the director general is not satisfied with a company's performance and agreement cannot be reached to secure improvement, the enforcement powers under Clause 38(1) or Clause 68(1) as appropriate would be invoked. Those powers enable the Secretary of State, upon written application by the director general, to make regulations on standards of performance which, if they were not achieved, would count as breaches of the undertakers' general duties under Clause 37 or 67 as appropriate. It would not be appropriate to have specific regulations to govern

1217
service standards in the Bill as this would reduce the flexibility that the director has to add to or amend any company's service standards, backed by the reserve powers of the present regime. The service standards have been widely publicised and we do not consider the specific regulations proposed to have any particular merit over those that we have already set out.
The physical condition of the sewers is a matter for the management of the company within its overall asset management plan, progress on which it will be required to report annually to the director under the terms of Condition K of the model instrument of appointment.
On health, Clause 67 already imposes a duty on the undertaker to provide a clean and well maintained sewerage system and it would be inappropriate to add a specific duty within a general clause of this nature.
Target levels of performance and investment are provided for within the instrument of appointment and, as I have explained, it would be inappropriate to place them on the face of the Bill.
We believe it to be more important and effective to have the undertakers' voluntary co-operation and would expect companies to achieve and maintain satisfactory levels of service. The regulation-making powers provide a reserve power for the director and the Secretary of State to act if they do not do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me whether I could define the word "appropriate". I should like to think that we have now defined "appropriate".
9.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the Minister, but I had to wait a long time before I could detect the premises upon which he rested his case. There were two matters which I raised. First, there is the horrendous state of the sewers of the nation. I cast no aspersions on who is responsible for it; nonetheless they are in a horrendous state. I also drew the attention of the Minister to the very disturbing situation with regard to rodent infestation. I waited to hear whether the Minister was satisfied that those two matters would be dealt with vigorously and urgently in what is a situation of emergency. The picture that I painted indeed shows an emergency situation.
The noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Dormand, are both familiar with the Newcastle district. So indeed am I. However, they continue to enjoy it as I no longer can do because they continue to live in the area whereas I can only return to it. In the period 1986–1988 Newcastle saw a 50 per cent. increase in its rodent population. At Wakefield, in the same period the rat population doubled. Even in places as wide apart as Dudley, Wigan, Barnsley and Barnet there has been an increase in the rat population of 30 per cent. in the past two or three years.
The Minister may say that he has a plan and a scheme to deal with this situation and that people will be expected to take action of various kinds but will he tell the House how he will begin to tackle the situation should there be in two years' time a doubling of the rat population in any of those areas?
1218
Someone will say that this is unacceptable. Will the reply be that a plan is being produced and so much money is being spent, but that there is a long way to go and in the meantime the Government will do their best? Whose responsibility will it be to ensure an improvement in the situation?
Over the past seven years in Manchester the responsible authority has undertaken a colossal capital investment programme in an attempt to stop the collapse of sewers in the Manchester area. After seven years it is still only 50 per cent. of the way toward achieving that target.
Will the Minister say something not about his concern, because I am sure he must be concerned, but about the action that he knows can be taken by the Government to make sure that money is spent on this matter. I hope that he will not tell the House that a plan will be produced but that it is so flexible that it is possible for the money to be spent otherwise than on improving the sewers and getting rid of the rats so that we are left with the worries of the public.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that the problem of rats as a result of two warm winters goes far beyond the reach of the sewers and the water industry. There has been a huge increase in the rat population in the countryside. At the end of the day the fact of the matter is that wherever that has occurred, good management is required to curb the population.
The asset management plans provide for orderly planning in the improvement of quality of service, which of course includes controlling rats. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of disaster in the North-West and North-East with collapsing sewers. All I can say to him is that on my last visit to the North West Water Authority I was told that the authority was finding it harder and harder to find a hole to let the ministerial car to fall into, which the authority was able to do with great ease years ago.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps members of the authority ought to visit this Chamber more often to see the holes that the Minister digs for himself! If the Minister is telling me that the North West Water Authority informs him that there is a shortage of holes into which the ministerial car can go—I think that that is what he said—then it flies in the face of the evidence that I have. It may have been a flippant remark. However, perhaps I may inform whoever made it to the Minister that I have the evidence which I shall send to him. In the centre of Manchester buses have collapsed into large holes; That was four or five years ago. Perhaps the authority has solved the problem as the Minister has implied. However, the evidence that I have received from the AMA this week is that its survey indicates that 50 per cent. of the aim has been achieved. One may have to be very careful where one looks for a hole in Manchester. I am told that there are still some there.
The Minister has been as helpful as he can to the House tonight. I shall read very carefully what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 218, line 18, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) in subsection (5), for the words from "the occupier" to the end of that subsection there shall be substituted the words "such contravention shall be actionable as a breach of contract between the discharger and the sewerage undertaker." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a most important point to which I referred in detail on Second Reading and when moving a similar amendment during the Committee stage. Essentially it refers to the fact that one limited company should not have the right or power of criminal prosecution against another limited company. This is clearly wrong and although I was reminded at Committee stage that Associated British Ports, Sealink Ltd., and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company have such powers, this can hardly be relevant because a customer of those companies can always use another port or travel by another ferry company. We have here a private monopoly. In such an atmosphere it is essential that industrial discharges to sewers should be covered by normal commercial contractual arrangements, with damages payable should there be any transgression on the part of the discharger.
I accept what I was previously told during Committee: there was no intention on the part of Government to give the new undertaker plcs an unfair commercial advantage by means of this Bill. However, that is exactly what it does. It does not require much imagination to see that an undertaker plc, out of duty to its shareholders, will use its unique expertise to enter the pollution abatement equipment market. With their powers of criminal prosecution, how will this not affect adversely those already in the market? Of course it is unintentional; but inevitably purchasers will feel that to obtain their equipment from the company which has the power to prosecute them will have great, if very much unadvertised, advantages, almost equal to the payment of protection money.
If the water and sewerage plcs are to divert into other areas of commerce, even to the taking over of other companies, they must be seen to do so under fair and not advantageous conditions. This Bill is to privatise the sewerage services and put them into the private sector. Therefore let us do it properly and let them perform in the usual way in the private sector; namely, by contracted arrangement.
If the Minister declines to accept this view, perhaps I may invite him to rehearse the reply that he or his successor will have to give from the Dispatch Box to questions of advantageous trading position which will inevitably arise if the chief executives of the new plcs are doing their jobs properly and making the best use of the facilities at their disposal in the interests of their shareholders.
As the Bill stands—again I say albeit unintentionally—these situations are bound to happen. The Minister might like to take the opportunity of avoiding difficulties for himself and his successors in office when they have to explain
1220
away or excuse the potential lamentable results occasioned by this fault in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I support the amendment. It concerns a similar problem to that debated at considerable length earlier. Now that the water authorities are to be public liability companies, the old existing practices that worked well enough in the past need careful consideration where the new authority is to be a public liability company, driven by profit and competitiveness, as the noble Earl said, with other commercial bodies. The whole matter needs careful consideration by my noble friend because it is in line with a problem that comes up time and again. I hope that my noble friend accepts that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps on one point it is possible to set at rest the mind of the noble Earl. There is no need to put provision for breach of contract in the Bill. All breaches of contract are actionable at common law whether put in a statute or not. We do not need anything in the Bill in terms of this amendment so far as it affects the right of breach of contract. But the noble Earl's amendment does more than that. By leaving out the newly written Section 3(1)(c) of the 1937 Act, he abolishes the power to prosecute for a criminal offence.
I can well understand the noble Earl's desire that two trade competitors or people in contractual relationships with each other should normally resort to civil remedies rather than to criminal remedies. However, by abolishing the contravention he removes the penal sanction—which in the public interest there really must be—in the circumstances envisaged in the amendment to the 1937 Act. Therefore I should have thought that my noble friend on the Front Bench would be in great difficulty about accepting the proposal.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, moved a similar amendment in Committee. Its effect is to amend paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 8 concerning legislation governing the discharge of trade effluents into public sewers so that where such discharges are made without the consent of the sewerage undertaker, or in breach of the terms of a consent, there would no longer be a criminal offence as there has been for over 50 years, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out. Instead the only control over what effluents from trade processes may go into a public sewer would be civil action for damages against the persons responsible.
The central proposition which has led the noble Earl to pursue his amendment is that it is wrong in principle for the sewerage undertakers to be able to prosecute their customers. That is a somewhat narrow description of the effect of the Bill's provisions in several respects which I shall come to but because of the importance he attaches to this central point I should also like once more to attempt to allay his concerns by exploring why we believe sewerage undertakers, or any other person, should be able to prosecute breaches of the trade effluent requirements.
The reception, treatment and disposal of trade effluents by the sewerage undertakers is in some

1221
respects like the normal commercial business of any company. However, there are important differences. One of these is the monopoly position held by an appointed undertaker and this has led us to continue to provide for appeals where a discharger cannot secure a consent which he regards as satisfactory. Such appeals to the director general mean that it is not ultimately for sewerage undertakers to say what shall or shall not be discharged into public sewers. That is not a normal contractual relationship.
Secondly, as we have emphasised in earlier debates—and I do not propose therefore to dwell on the point—the consequences of making discharges into public sewers with which the sewerage system cannot cope potentially go much wider than harm to the undertakers' business. If sewers or treatment works are overloaded, or if dangerous substances are present, various forms of nuisance, damage and environmental harm could occur affecting the environment, the public or employees of the undertakers. There is a public interest in effective enforcement of the requirement that only acceptable discharges are to be made.
The noble Earl has suggested that we should focus on a contractual relationship between discharger and undertaker. In the case of discharges made without a consent there is in fact no relationship established between them. If there is no criminal offence why would any discharger then think it worth his while to bother applying for a consent to discharge? Even if consent is obtained why would the discharger bother, for example, to comply with any monitoring requirements? Relying upon civil remedies would rapidly lead to the consent requirements becoming ignored and unenforceable.
Finally, on the question of prosecutions of customers who refuse to comply with their consents, let me remind your Lordships that non-customers without consents would also face prosecution. However, there is no reason to deny sewerage undertakers (who will be required by law to discharge their sewerage functions and to observe the trade effluent duty clarified in Clause 69 at the noble Earl's instigation) the protection of criminal sanctions against those who are willing to risk damage to the assets needed to discharge those functions. For that is what breaches of the requirements included in a consent amount to. There is no reason for dischargers to break the law and if they comply with it they will find we have provided ample safeguards for their interests in the regulatory framework.
I should add that powers for private companies which operate statutory undertakings to be protected by criminal sanctions are well precedented; for example, controls over oil discharges by vessels using harbours. It is a principle of English law that unless an offence is an individual grievance and is a matter of public policy and utility and concerns public morals, any person (which can include a company) has a general power to prosecute unless the statute creating the offence contains some restriction of this right. We consider that it would be quite wrong to exclude the appointed undertaker from prosecuting breaches under legislation which requires that undertaker to discharge statutory functions.
1222
For those reasons I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long and helpful reply. Although this is the second time on which I have raised the issue it is the first time I have been told that I am totally removing the right of prosecution. In Committee I said that prosecution should be in the hands of authorities and not public companies. Therefore, I did not believe that I was removing prosecution entirely. Much of the Minister's response was related to the fact that I was suggesting that there should be no prosecution. That is not so. I was merely suggesting that prosecution should be in the hands of authorities and not commercial companies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for searching that out.
It appears that I shall not get much further with the issue. However, Ministers should be forewarned that when questions of commercial advantage arise, I, as a Cross-Bencher, shall never be in the unfortunate position of having to stand at that Dispatch Box to answer them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 [Requisitioning of sewers]:
[Amendment No. Ill had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List]
Clause 72 [Financial conditions of sewers requisition]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 83, line 19, at beginning insert—
("Subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch. This amendment covers a new issue which has arisen from an increasingly close examination of the terms of the Bill by the water authority.
Section 16 of the Water Act 1973 provides for the requisitioning of a sewer to be used for domestic purposes in the following terms:
"A sewer shall be treated for the purpose of this section as used for domestic purposes if it is used for removing the contents of a lavatory or removing water used for cooking or washing other than water used for the business of a laundry or a business of preparing food or beverages for consumption otherwise than on the premises".
Under the existing Act, therefore, a surface water sewer cannot be requisitioned. The new Bill introduces an additional facility by which under Clause 71 sewers can be requisitioned both for the purposes given above and in Clause 71(2)(a)(iii) also for the removal of surface waters.
When this Bill comes into force Clause 72 will cover the financial conditions of sewer requisitioning. Clause 72(2), (3) and (7) contains the complicated formula by which the sum is payable by the person making the requisition to the sewerage undertaker and is calculated in terms of a relevant deficit in relation to a drainage charge. The

1223
particular problem which has prompted the tabling of this amendment is how this formula would apply to properties which have existing foul water sewerage and where a surface water sewer is requisitioned, and vice versa—properties having a surface water sewer for which a foul water sewer is requisitioned.
Anglia Water Authority and, I understand, other water authorities make the same sewerage charge regardless of whether a person has foul water sewerage, surface water sewerage or mixed sewerage. Obviously, the lower the drainage charge for the purpose of Clause 72(3), the larger will be the difference between the drainage charges and the annual borrowing costs, and thus the larger the sum paid by the person who is making the requisition.
It is not clear from the words of the Bill how the formula will apply to a person whose property is already served by a foul water sewer but who requisitions a surface water sewer, or a person who already has a surface water sewer but who requisitions a foul water sewer. The amendment suggests one means of tackling that problem. The amendment does not cover a third eventuality which arises when separate sewers are provided for surface foul waters and are subject to a requisition.
I look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister and I hope that he will agree that this is a problem that needs tackling.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I hope that I have understood this amendment properly. I have listened very carefully. I can say, from the point of view of someone who pays sewerage and water charges, that it has always annoyed me intensely that on a building in which I have no water connection and no sewerage I pay a charge to the water authority for taking my rainwater.
I do not know whether the noble Earl is saying that there is a difference in the way the charges should be made. Anglia Water may have a different method of charging from Southern Water. It seems very hard that one pays a substantial sum because the rain from the gutters and roofs goes into the sewer. I suppose that the ideal situation would be for it to go into separate sewers.
It will be interesting to hear the response of the Government. Have they any intention of bringing in a separate basis upon which charges are made either for foul water sewerage or for purely rainwater? Can the subsequent plcs make these charges legally? I think it is wrong that I have had to pay that figure for so many years.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Clause 72 sets out the financial conditions that have to be satisfied before a sewerage undertaker is required to respond to a requisition for a public sewer under Clause 71. The person requisitioning the sewer has to undertake to pay the relevant deficit on the sewer for each of the 12 years following the provision of the sewer. The relevant deficit is the difference between the income to the undertaker each year from certain charges for the use of the sewer and the annual borrowing cost of a loan equivalent to the costs incurred by the undertaker in providing the sewer.
1224
I am grateful that my noble friend has raised this point. As he said, it is a new point. I ask my noble friend to turn to Clause 72(3) which provides that the drainage charges taken into account in the relevant deficit calculation are those payable for the use during the year of the requisitioned sewer. It will therefore be only those charges directly attributable to the requisitioned sewer that are taken into account in the relevant deficit calculation. The circumstances included in the amendment would involve premises served by separate foul and surface water sewers. In these cases, the undertaker would be required to break down the sewerage charges between those in respect of foul and surface water to enable him to determine the element to be taken into account in the relevant deficit calculations.
I tried to follow with care my noble friend's argument. As your Lordships will be aware, these amendments were seen by my department only this morning and if I have missed a point my noble friend can rest assured that I will write to him between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it seems clear from my noble friend's reply that any sewer can be treated as a separate exercise and, whether or not there was an existing sewer, the new sewer would require a separate charge and a separate calculation. As I said earlier, this is different from the present custom of existing water authorities but no doubt they could accommodate it.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the circumstances are such that if these clauses were to be in operation he could have required the undertaker to provide the sewerage that he wants. It would not be an imposition but a way by which he would finance the requisition. However, having heard what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11IB not moved.]
Clause 73 [Performance of sewerage functions by local authorities etc.]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 111C:
Page 85, line 19, at end insert—
("(2A) Any termination of arrangements under this section shall be made in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 26 below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendment deals with Clause 73, which is headed:
"Performance of sewerage functions by local authorities etc.".
Subsection (2) refers to arrangements that are made by a sewerage undertaker and a local authority. We seek to insert a new subsection (2A) which reads:
"Any termination of arrangements under this section shall be made in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 26 below".
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said in Committee:
"I should say, by way of introduction, that we do not differ at all… in wishing to see a continuing role for local authorities in this field where they provide a cost-effective service".
He went on to say:
"We accept—and I must stress this—that there is a good case for local authorities carrying out sewerage work by arrangement with sewerage undertakers if both parties are agreeable".—[Official Report, 22/5/89; col. 13.]
Clearly, there is no basic disagreement on the point of principle. It is common ground that there are obvious advantages to the undertaker, which I do not need to reiterate, in retaining the skill and expertise of the local authorities in this vital service—an important area of public health. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that his ministerial colleagues in another place are on record as endorsing those opinions. Therefore, I assume that there is no objection to having the words of my amendment on the face of the Bill.
Government Ministers have been entirely consistent in wishing to give the greatest degree of flexibility to any parties joined in sewerage arrangements. The Bill as it stands enables sewerage undertakers to adopt any appropriate arrangements in the interests of providing sewerage services in their respective areas. The main point is that this amendment does not seek to change that position. It simply restores the right of appeal to local authorities, and that is a right currently available to them as sewerage agents under the provisions of the Water Act 1973. That is a right that this Bill has omitted to provide.
It is widely believed by Government Ministers that there will be a continued involvement by local authorities. Therefore there should be a ready appreciation of this amendment to avoid what would otherwise become the unilateral termination of agency agreements. In keeping with the spirit of the Bill that is a situation that should not arise. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said on 22nd May at col. 15 of the Official Report concerning the matter of appointment:
"the sewerage undertaker must be the ultimately responsible body which has the final decision".
I simply say that cannot be acceptable where there is a potential risk of arbitrary and unilateral termination. It is agreed that the sewerage undertaker must always be in control but it must be a control that is fairly exercised.
Many local authorities are aware that cost comparisons of the performance of themselves as sewerage agents are not made from the same common base, thereby favouring some at the expense of others. The present arrangements provide the right of appeal under the provisions of the Water Act 1973 for an industry operated within the public sector. We can see no harm in applying the same provisions to a privatised water industry. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly before the Minister replies. He will be delighted to know that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 112 but to withdraw it because I believe it is defective. In that amendment we thought very much on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, except that we considered the appeal should be to the director of water services and not
1226
to the Secretary of State. Where there is a dispute as regards an agency contract between an undertaker and the authority which is cancelled and the undertaker decides either to put it out elsewhere or to do it himself, we feel that the appeal should be to the director. In 99 cases out of 100 the local authority would normally be the authority involved and it should at least have a chance to state its case to the Director of Water Services. If he thinks that the scheme or the quality of work is not up to standard and comes down in favour of the undertaker, that is fair enough. But there should be that reference. My amendment suggests that it might go to the director of water services rather than to the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments would maintain a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for local authorities virtually identical to that of the Water Act 1983, following notice of termination of existing sewerage arrangements from an undertaker. The Secretary of State would then have the power to confirm, vary or terminate arrangements as he saw fit. This amendment is based on a refusal to recognise two guiding principles of the Bill.
First, the undertaker will have to meet specific standards of service, which will be monitored by the director general, within a strict limit on the charges which he can raise. Secondly, within these constraints the undertaker should have the maximum commercial freedom to manage his business efficiently, in the interests of both shareholders and customers. We believe that the proposed amendment is quite inconsistent with these principles. We are not insensitive, however, to the need for a transitional period during which all parties can adjust to the changed circumstances brought about by the Bill. Consequently, reasonable notice has to be given of termination, and undertakers will be unable to give notice which expires before 1st April 1992.
That is not arbitrary or unilateral. I stand entirely by the words that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, repeated to me from the other side of the Dispatch Box at an earlier stage of this Bill. But there is a different approach from the two sides of the Dispatch Box on this point. I have put the Government's position and that is why we do not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the 1973 Act provides a right of appeal in the event of a proposed termination. Can the Minister explain why that provision is not considered appropriate to be included in this Bill? The noble Lord put this against the two imperatives which he set out at the beginning of his short speech. Surely, in common justice, never mind business or financial imperatives, an authority which has satisfactorily undertaken a function is at least entitled to a period of grace when it is told that somebody else will undertake it.
Local authorities have a good record. They are entitled to what I call common justice. While it is in the gift of the undertaker to decide who shall

1227
undertake these functions, why does the noble Lord resist an amendment which asks only for fair play and common justice?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be aware of our position. We believe that the companies should be allowed to make arrangements which they consider to be entirely satisfactory. We believe that a great number of local authorities will continue to carry out the job which they have done satisfactorily to date. We do not believe, however, that the undertakers should be shackled. The noble Lord referred to the 1973 Act. It was drawn up when there was no concept of water privatisation. That is why it is not entirely relevant to this debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord is saying that for the Secretary of State to have drawn to his attention by an appeal the breaking of an arrangement, which in the eyes of the authority might be damaging to the public and to the consumer, will shackle the new plcs. That is a strange concept. We do not envisage the new privatised companies not being able to do what they want. However, in equity and justice, local authorities should be able to draw attention to the breaking of an arrangement so that the Secretary of State is able to take a view. He may well decide that he does not want to be involved. In that case, should there be a tragedy under the new arrangements, he will have washed his hands of it before it happens. However, there could be circumstances in which the Secretary of State will ask the plc to reflect on what it wants to do. Can the Minister say anything more helpful?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I made clear in my first reply, nothing will happen before 1st April 1992. If a water undertaker is not happy it will discuss the matter with the agent which may be a local authority. It may not be fulfilling the job which the undertaker wants doing at the price it wants it done. All the mechanism is there for allowing the local authority to agree to a new set of arrangements. Nowhere else in the kingdom does one find a commercial company having to comply with a reference to the Secretary of State if the authority is not happy with a commercial undertaking. That is why we are resisting the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord has said enough. Water and sewerage are unique. Public health is unique. The noble Lord indicated that the period of grace could be used by a plc to lay down what it was prepared to pay, which could be far less than would be economical. It could then say that if the authority was not prepared to provide a service—whatever that might mean and however many corners might have to be cut—it would voluntarily put itself outside the tendering arrangement. The Minister has said sufficient to indicate the genesis of this matter, which is that the services will be provided as cheaply as possible and that on the margin public health will be at risk. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Charges schemes]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 88, line 6, at beginning insert ("subject to charges for domestic consumers being at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by the undertaker,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment at some considerable length when we discussed Amendment No. 108ZC, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Since then I have had "tea" with my noble friend Lord Caithness, except that we did not in fact have any tea. I must say that he has been most helpful in this connection.
However, I should like to ask my noble friend first whether the Government agree with the principle that rural consumers should not be discriminated against. This non-discrimination has, as he and I both know, long been the practice of water authorities in the past. Secondly, although I am not sure which word to use here—for example, whether to use the word "rules" or the word "game"—do the Government accept that things have now changed because of privatisation and that the new public liability companies could in theory—although it sounds awful—discriminate against rural areas?
My noble friend was kind enough to say in relation to the last amendment that he would look at the problem. I wonder whether he could now give me an assurance that it is his hope to be able to put some provision on to the face of the Bill which would meet the concerns which were so forcefully expressed by Members on all sides of the House when we discussed this amendment earlier today. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I intervene not to repeat the arguments which were, as the noble Lord, said, rehearsed at some length earlier this afternoon, but to make clear that in our view this is not a private discussion between the Front and Back-Benches of the Conservative Party; this is something about which we on these Benches feel most strongly. We feel that the protection of those who happen to live in areas where the cost of supply may be greater should not be taken away simply as a result of privatisation. The principle of an equal basis of charging throughout the country in all localities is most important. It is one which exists in the public utilities and one which should be carried over even after privatisation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although I did not have time to take tea with my noble friend, I hope that he has found an opportunity to refresh himself both with food and liquid since we spoke.
Perhaps I may first deal with his last point. I have said that I shall be prepared to meet my noble friend to discuss the matter. As he well knows, I should not

1229
have agreed to do so unless I thought that such a meeting would be constructive. I do not rule out the possibility that we may be able to clarify the Bill in some way so as to satisfy your Lordships on this point. However, I cannot give any guarantee on the matter because we would not want to risk disadvantaging some other equally worthy classes of customer; but I can say that we are at one on principle.
The Bill and the licence will continue to provide that there shall be no undue discrimination. In that way I can agree with my noble friend's first point that rural customers should not be unduly discriminated against in future any more than they are now. Certainly the contents of Clause 7(2) will not alter the position with relation to rural consumers. I think that perhaps we should go no further on the issue today and that we should defer our debate until another occasion.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that assurance. I fully understand that he cannot say precisely what he will put in the Bill because neiher he nor I know exactly what he could put forward. However, I must remind him that like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I feel most strongly about this matter; indeed, the whole House feels strongly about it and I know that my noble friend is aware of that fact. I am not threatening him in anyway; but if he is unable to put something on the face of the Bill, then I shall have to return to the matter on Third Reading. I have checked with the Clerk of the Parliaments to ascertain whether that would be in order because I cannot let down those who have supported me so loyally. I thank my noble friend, and I hope that we can see our way to putting something in the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 77 [Liability of occupiers etc. for charges]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 89, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 77, which deals with the liability of occupiers etc. for charges, follows the General Rates Act 1967. That Act places the interest of the public purse above justice to the individual, however humble the individual may be and however unjust it may be to pursue him for debts incurred by somebody else.
It is in Clause 77(5) and (6) that that rather unattractive anti-social principle is repeated. Perhaps I may give one or two examples of how it operates. Where a tenant is not responsible for rates, but under his agreement with the landlord the landlord is responsible for the rates, if the landlord, having been paid by the tenant, fails to pass them on to the water undertaker, formerly the water company, or whatever it might be, then the water company can sue the unfortunate tenant. That is only one example. It gets worse, because owing to the reference to "any occupier" it could mean that a new tenant, who did not enjoy the water in respect of which the charges are made, could be sued under the provision.
Indeed, the provision means that the original landlord could be sued; the new landlord could be sued; the original tenant could be sued, even though he was not obliged to pay the rates; or the new tenant could be sued—any occupier or any landlord. That is not justice. We ought to do better than that.
I believe that it is relevant also to point out that since the General Rates Act was passed—of course it is still in operation and will remain so until we have the community charge in force—we shall have abolished the system of general rates and we shall have replaced them with the community charge plus water charges. There is a change of circumstance which would make it wrong to continue with the previous law.
There is another factor. Under the Housing Act 1988, security of tenure has changed. Particular landlords of tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies—for example, six-month tenancies—can review the tenancy every six months and may end it for any reason. That intensifies the possibility of injustice under these provisions. At this late hour, I do not wish to deploy as full a case as one could. I think I have said enough to make it clear that the Government should reconsider this matter and replace subsections (5) and (6) with something which is more up to date and fairer and which will avoid causing the kinds of injustices I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of my noble friend's amendment. Surely all commercial businesses have to rely upon the courts for the collection and enforcement of all outstanding debts. I cannot see any reason why the water and sewerage businesses should be an exception to this
1232
rule. If a retailer is in debt to a wholesaler, then the wholesaler is not entitled to try to collect the debt from the customers of the retailer. This seems a similar situation.
I can see many difficulties arising. For instance, what would happen in the case of multiplicity of bedsits in one establishment if the landlord defaulted? Who would have to pay? How would the water authorities and water companies charge the tenants then? I do not see why they should be harassed at all by the water companies, if, as my noble friend Lord Renton says, it is possible that the debt was incurred long before they became tenants. I think that these amendments will remove the power of undertakers to hold occupiers liable for charges where another person has agreed with the undertaker to meet those charges. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon my noble friend's amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the short version of his speech it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, deployed his arguments to great effect. I wish to add my support to them and to say also that it seems that those who are already worse off—that is the tenants, the people who are in the least favourable economic and financial situation—are most likely to suffer from the provisions. They pay their water bills as part of their rent. They fulfil their contract with their landlords. So far as they are concerned, it is undoubtedly difficult enough to achieve that. For them then to find that the law provides that they can be pursued simply because the landlords have not handed over the money to the water companies, or because some other tenant or some other landlord at some other period of time has not handed over the money, seems to us to be grotesquely unfair. I hope that the Government will be able to respond sympathetically to the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that if the two subsections were taken out, other subsections might have to be substituted. I assume that on that basis this is a probing amendment which will require further thought before Third Reading. If that is the case, we wish to be associated with any further thought that is possible or necessary.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Renton in putting the amendment forward if the argument he has deployed with regard to what we might call secondary charging is valid under subsections (5) and (6).
The wording of these two subsections is extremely obscure. It does not necessarily seem to me to bear the full interpretation which my noble friend and all noble Lords have put upon it. If I am wrong and that interpretation is correct, then one should support the amendment. However, I wish to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench whether I am right in believing that there are covering points which may not totally support my noble friend's argument. I am hesitant in saying that because my noble friend Lord Renton is usually so accurate on these matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have it right on this occasion too.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, my noble friend assures me that he has it right on this occasion too.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely the obscurity of subsections (5) and (6) is an additional reason for removing them. It is rather like Groucho Marx's contract.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it is a perfectly valid point that improvement of the verbiage of these particular subsections may be possible. However, Groucho Marx also said that he would not be prepared to belong to any club that would accept him as a member.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with care to my noble friends. I believe they have a very good point. I accept that the issue of such notices on tenants under subsections (5) and (6) might cause considerable distress to the more vulnerable members of the community. I also accept that the water undertaker will always have the option of seeking to recover bad debts from previous landlords through the courts, and that risk of disconnection has been substantially reduced now that in virtually all cases the customer in arrears will have the protection of county court scrutiny of his circumstances before disconnection can take place.
I say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I am happy to consider this amendment with a view to seeing whether we can amend the Bill at another stage. I shall be happy to enter into discussions with him before then.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will greatly appreciate the undertaking which my noble friend has given, and for which we are deeply grateful. I am sure that the National Consumer Council, which inspired my noble friend Lord Wise and myself to move this amendment, will also be appreciative. I look forward to Third Reading. If my noble friend wishes to discuss the matter with me and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, between now and then, I am sure we are at his disposal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 113B:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:

("Prohibition on unlicensed supply.

.—(1) A person who—

(a) supplies water or sewerage services to any premises, house or building; or

(b) charges for water or sewerage services supplied to any premises, house or building;

shall be guilty of an offence unless he is authorised to do so by an appointment made under section 11 of this Act, or an exemption.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 113C. Indeed, it is essential that I do so, because Amendment No. 113B appears to introduce a
1234
prohibition on unlicensed supply. That is by no means our intention with these amendments. The meat of the amendments, as it were, is contained in Amendment No. 113C which concerns the exemptions from the prohibition on unlicensed supply. Let me make it clear that it is not in any way our intention to interfere with the many small cases of private supply, for example, from wells, particularly in rural areas. We do not wish to interfere with someone who happens to have a well and who happens to supply his neighbours, tenants or anybody else in the vicinity.
This amendment was, like the previous amendment, originally envisaged by the National Consumer Council. We are concerned at the lack of regulation for supply, other than by appointed undertakers. I am not saying that it is not deliberate, but the Bill has the curious effect that there is a definition of private supply in Clause 66, and there is some regulation of private supply by local authorities in Clauses 56 and 57. They are responsible, for example, for ensuring the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water that is supplied privately. However, private supply in general is not covered by any of the redress provisions for consumers which exist for appointed undertakers. The examples I would give of this are Clause 22(5), Clause 38(2), Clause 40(6), Clause 44(1), Clause 45(7), Clause 49(3), Clause 51(7), Clause 68(2), Clause 71(7) and Clause 78(3)(f). It will be seen that there is substantial protection and substantial redress for those who are badly treated by companies holding an appointment. However, no such protection and no such redress exists for those who receive a private supply.
As I have already said, it is not our intention that small, local, private supplies should be covered by this provision. It is perfectly possible for such supplies to be granted either in a particular case or by a class protection by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) of Amendment No. 113C. We are concerned about the risk that the appointed water undertakings could have subsidiaries which are not themselves appointed and which therefore do not provide the redress and the protection for the consumer which is a feature of the Bill—and of which the Government are very proud.
In other words, it is when supply other than by appointed undertakers is a commercial business or is a device by appointed undertakers that we start to be concerned, and we feel that consumers need the protection which is afforded elsewhere in the Bill. Therefore Amendment No. 113C requires that there should be exemption from the prohibition on unlicensed supply but that that exemption should be in accordance with any terms contained in the exemption and should continue in force for such period as may be specified in, or determined by or under the exemption.
That may seem a curious way to attack what appears to us to be a gap in consumer protection. I hope that we have formulated it correctly, that the Government recognise the justice of the case and will feel able to support the two amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may comment because I am very concerned by what has been said. Although I sympathise with the principle behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and recognise that people who receive water from private supplies need protection, it is worth pointing out that under the provisions of this Bill local authorities have a distinct responsibility to check private supplies with regard to both wholesomeness and quantity of water. That is clearly made out and I feel that in that respect much of the noble Lord's concern is covered by the functions of the environmental health department of a district council. I think that that applies to both England and Scotland.
I should like to quote a personal example to illustrate my concern. At my home most of the estate is served by a private water supply from a very good spring. It supplies one farm and about 40 houses, so it is not exactly small. My next door neighbour—by which I mean someone who lives two miles away—has a similar system. At present I am having the system analysed by the local authority to ascertain the quality of the supply. The last time that was done was 20 years ago.
The amendment states that a person who supplies water to any house or charges for water shall be guilty of an offence unless he is authorised to do so by an appointment or an exemption.
Normally, I have never charged for water, but the pipe goes off into three branches. Just a year ago, I took advantage of a Government grant to replace lead pipes with pipes of other materials. It was a 75 per cent. grant which is available to anyone. For the nine houses involved—of which only one belonged to me; that was house No. 9, the last one—it worked out at about £1,000 per house. The grant covered three-quarters of the cost, but that was the first and, I hope, will be the only occasion when I have had to charge the occupiers of the other eight houses approximately £250.
Under the wording of the proposed new clause, if I made that charge, I should be guilty of an offence unless I was licensed to make such a charge. That is where the second new clause to be considered comes into effect. It states:
"The Secretary of State may … grant exemption from [the] section…above, but subject to compliance with such conditions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate".
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State decides that one may charge for the water, but that the cost will be spread over 10 years. In that case, not only would I want to register as a water supplier, but I should have to bring in the question of interest. If I had to spread that cost over 10 years, I would charge not £25 a year but £29 a year to cover my costs. If the amendments were accepted, and I were involved in such matters, it would pay me to make certain that in future I charged for water and was licensed. I do not think that the amendment will have the desired effect.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with care both to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to my noble friend Lord Balfour. What my noble friend has said reinforces me in my contention that
1236
the amendments would introduce heavy-handed regulatory powers which are not needed.
Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that there is at all times after the transfer date an appointed water undertaker and an appointed sewerage undertaker for every area of England and Wales. Those undertakers will thus have a monopoly over the powers given to undertakers under the terms of Clause 11. Similarly, they will be uniquely obliged to meet all the obligations of water and sewerage undertakers. The powers of undertakers include all the powers needed to discharge their functions, for example, concerning laying mains and sewers in streets or fixing water charges in charges schemes. Their obligations include providing services to customers connecting to the public mains and sewer networks and extending those networks to serve new customers. Private services are numerous for both water supply and sewerage. Although a high proportion of households is connected to the mains and sewers of the undertakers, there are still a large number who are not. It would be quite wrong at this stage of the Bill to introduce unlimited powers for the Secretary of State to ban or regulate the continued provision of services to those customers.
So far as concerns new customers, we have not intended to prevent the occasional case in which private services may also be provided by someone other than the appointed undertaker in the future. Clause 12(2)(c) provides for variation of appointments in areas where the undertakers currently serve no customers so that a different company could be appointed as the undertaker. In such areas, it is likely that the existing, or a new, undertaker would become the supplier of new customers both because the powers of undertakers will be needed to provide the necessary infrastructure and because customers will expect the certainty that goes with requiring services from the appointed undertaker.
However, it is possible for new appointees to take on appointments in such areas. Also, in marginal cases, it is possible, for example, for a company to obtain an extraction licence and to provide water for a group of industrial users on an industrial estate on a wholly commercial basis. We have no reason to prevent that taking place. Providers of services other than appointed undertakers will be subject to abstraction licensing, a requirement to provide wholesome drinking water and to obtain consents for any discharges that they make to the environment. We do not believe that there is a need for another tier of regulation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in responding, let me start by putting at rest the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. Even the first amendment does not make any distinction between anybody who supplies without charging and anybody who supplies and makes a charge. It says:
"(a)… or (b)".
The exemption or regulation provisions of Amendment No. 113C apply in either case. So it does not matter from the point of view of these amendments whether or not he makes a charge.

1237
In introducing the amendments, I did not make clear that it was not our intention in any way to ban private supplies; but it was our intention to ensure that those water users who are under private supply have the same means of redress against their suppliers as those who are not. That is the purport of Amendment No. 113C.
It is difficult—in fact impossible—for us approaching this matter at a late stage in this Bill to do anything other than say that the Secretary of State shall have the responsibility of granting exemptions under such conditions as he thinks fit. We are certainly not in any position to rewrite the whole Bill in order to ensure that the consumer protection that is written into it so far as concerns the appointed undertakers applies to all consumers.
However, I think that it is not too difficult to see that there is a problem in this respect. There are some consumers who are losing the protection or failing to gain advantage from the protection which is provided to all the other consumers. They may not comprise a very large number and it may be that the regulatory system will have to be simplified because of the small number of people concerned. Certainly it is highly likely that local supplies such as those to which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred on his own estate would be automatically exempt from the provisions of these new clauses simply on the grounds that the number of people concerned was too small.
There are protections. They ought to be available to all consumers but they are not available to all consumers. If we have inadvertently proposed a regulatory regime which, as the Minister said, is too harsh, we shall have to think again about this matter. These are not amendments that I wish to press to a Division. However, I hope that as the Minister reads the Official Report he will recognise that, however defective the wording, behind it is a real concern for people who would otherwise not be adequately protected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113C not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 113D:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:

("Re-sale of water and sewerage services.

—(1) This section applies to water and sewerage services supplied to a consumer's premises by a person who is authorised by an appointment or exemption to supply water or sewerage services.
(2) The Director may from time to time fix maximum prices at which water and sewerage services to which this section applies, may be resold, and may publish the prices so fixed in such manner as in his opinion will secure adequate publicity for them.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation make such provision concerning the re-sale of and charging for water and sewerage services as he considers appropriate.
(4) If any person resells water to which this section applies at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under this section and applicable thereto, the amount of the excess shall be recoverable by the person to whom the water was resold.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 113D, with the leave of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 118A tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That amendment appears to overlap our amendment, if I may put it that way, in that two of the subsections are the same. There is some variation for reasons of which I am unaware.
Again let me make it clear that the purpose of this amendment is not to prohibit the resale of water. That would be absurd and impossible. It is to ensure that there is adequate control of the prices at which water and sewerage services are resold in order to avoid exploitation. This is not a completely new or surprising provision. The Electricity Bill that is under consideration in Committee in your Lordships' House includes in Clause 40, provisions for setting maximum resale prices. Section 37 of the recent Gas Act provides similarly that there should be powers to fix maximum retail prices.
As with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we are concerned principally with tenants, with those who are likely to be less advantaged people in our society. One can think of tenants of caravan sites, of hostels; and possibly of people who may not be less advantaged such as those in new housing estates whose landlords or developers decide to take on the prime responsibility for the provision of water and sewerage services on a resale basis from the appointed undertaker.
I confess that I am not much of a supporter of the resale of water for profit. It does not strike me as a very attractive proposition. However, that is not what the amendment states. We are not trying to ban resale. We are saying that the director general should have the power to fix a maximum price which would be comparable to the rights of tenants to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred in a previous amendment.
The people who are likely to be affected by this amendment are those who suffer from many other disadvantages. They are likely to be in less satisfactory accommodation and to have less security of tenure. The Gas Act goes some way to providing that their landlords should not cheat them on the gas meter. The Electricity Bill contains comparable provisions. We are asking for the same rights to be conferred on them in the Water Bill with regard to their water supply. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, Amendment No. 118A, put forward by my noble friend Lady Blatch and myself, deals, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, with very much the same subject. Perhaps I can bring it down to ground level by saying that there has been a problem in the Anglian Water Authority area where a few weeks ago a trading standards officer received a query from a mobile home owner who felt that he had been overcharged for supply of water. This amendment refers to tenants who have sub-meters. It will be a more frequent occurrence as metering becomes more widespread in the country. It applies to any caravan site and no doubt also to marinas.

1239
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has pointed out, there are provisions in Section 37 of the Gas Act, and in the Electricity Bill at present going through this House, for controlling the resale. There is no animadversion whatever to those who sell on water. In many cases, such as caravan sites, it may be an essential part of the administration of the site. However, our proposal—which is identical in intent—is that there should be restrictions on the maximum prices that can be charged.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am beginning to be concerned about the similarity of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and those of my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Cranbrook. I hope that this will not continue for too long. However, I am glad to note that it is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who on this occasion has a starred amendment. He has obviously been influenced by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I think that gives me greater comfort than a moment ago.
Although the Government have very little evidence to suggest that the resale of water by unscrupulous landlords is a problem—notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has just said—I agree that in order to prevent such a problem occurring in the future it would be useful to give the director general powers to fix the maximum price of water and sewerage services that may be resold. I am happy therefore to give an undertaking that the Government will consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook about the resale of water by landlords with a view to coming forward with an amendment at a later stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am entirely happy with that assurance, although I am conscious that there is only one later stage at which the Minister can come back. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Restrictions on power to make connection and certain other charges]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 91, line 14, at end insert ("; or(c) the person providing any recreational facility or service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 79 provides that the water or sewerage undertaker should not,
"demand or recover an initial charge for its becoming, or for its taking steps for the purpose of becoming the person who provides a supply of water for domestic purposes or the person who provides sewerage services".
Presumably that means that the undertaker shall not charge a premium or anything of that kind for taking over the provision of these services. The amendment seeks to add that it should not charge an extra sum of money for taking over any recreational facility
1240
or service. I have in mind particularly fishing and possibly also boating and water-skiing.
There is no attempt to tie down the water or sewerage undertaker to keep the same charges for ever more. Nobody is suggesting that. But there should not be some kind of premium charge for taking over provision of these services. I hope that the Government will take this on board. The authorities have been very forward looking and co-operative in their provision of these services, certainly boating, water-skiing and fishing. They have been receptive—especially to myself when I was in the other place—to pleas on behalf of constituents to provide fishing facilities. And they certainly did not overcharge. That is good and we want it to continue. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to prevent a water or sewerage undertaker levying an initial charge on a person for whom the undertaker is becoming the provider of recreational facilities or services. I expect many of your Lordships will find my account of the effect of the amendment rather obscure. The obscurity we believe is unavoidable. The amendment deals with charging for recreation, while Clause 79, to which it applies, is about charging for connecting premises to water and sewerage services. Undertakers will not be connecting anyone to their recreational facilities.
I suppose the nearest analogy to a recreational connection charge is a membership fee levied on joining a boating club run by an undertaker. However, I do not think this analogy is worth pursuing. The fault behind the amendment is hardly to outlaw the levying of fees for joining boating clubs.
The amendment should not be accepted, not just because it is difficult to attribute any clear meaning to it, but also because the thought behind it—that the right of the undertakers to charge for the provision of recreational facilities and services should be controlled—is something we discussed and rejected when considering Clause 8(6) which permits undertakers to charge for recreational facilities. If any undertaker cannot recover its costs for connecting a person to recreational facilities from the person so connected—I am not sure what that means—then the public at large will have to meet the costs through higher water charges.
We do not believe that the amendment should be accepted.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am afraid I do not see the word "connection" in this first part of Clause 79. There is no mention of connection. The clause reads,
"shall entitle any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker to fix, demand or recover an initial charge for its becoming, or for its taking steps for the purpose of becoming".
That could be read as meaning that when the undertaker takes over, as a plc, those services, it could say to us, the customers and consumers, "We are not going to provide them until you pay us an initial cost for taking over". That may be far-fetched, but the Bill does not actually say "connection". That is why the amendment has been tabled.

1241
I wish that the Minister would say more to reassure the people dependent on water authorities for fishing and other recreational purposes that it is not in the mind of the Government that any initial charge should be made for carrying on those facilities when the privatisation of water takes place. Certainly, in the longer term, the charge for the provision of fishing facilities should go up with inflation. But a fishing organisation should not be told. "We cancel that contract and if you wish to take it on you have to pay us a premium." Premiums involving enormous sums of money have been paid in the commercial field over the past few years.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have not fully understood the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It would be best if I read the Official Report. If I see that we are diverging on to two different tracks I shall write to him in order that we can return to the same track.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 [Exemption from charges for water for fire fighting]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 92, line 28, leave out from ("or") to end of line 30 and insert—
("taken by a fire authority for any other emergency purposes;

(b) water taken for the purpose of testing apparatus installed or equipment used for extinguishing fires or for the purpose of training persons for fire-fighting; or

(c) the availability of water for any purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116, 117 and 118. The amendments reopen a matter which was discussed briefly in Committee. It concerned the charging arrangements for water supplied for fire services.
At present the legislation in the Bill exempts from charging arrangements water supplied not only for extinguishing fires but also for testing apparatus. When the legislation was originally drafted, firemen did little more than hold a hose from which water was emitted. We are told that the situation is now quite different. Different types of fires require different treatment. While they are all water based there are many different methods of mixing chemicals with the water and applying the resultant mixture to the fire in question.
That has meant that recently fire services have had to undergo a much higher level of training. Following the analogy that has always been accepted—that it is acceptable for water to be supplied free of charge for the testing of equipment—it seems to us that there can be little argument against a similar activity of training or testing the firemen who must operate the equipment. In any case, the water so used is almost immediately
1242
returned via the drainage system to the water authority. We submit that it is wasteful of public money to require the additional equipment and administration necessary to raise charges for this insignificant field of activity. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am pleased to say that, following the undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Hesketh during the Committee stage of this Bill, the Government accept these amendments which extend the prohibition on charging for water for fire-fighting to include that taken for fire-fighting training and for other emergency purposes provided by a fire authority.
Noble Lords will be pleased to note that the prohibition on charging will also cover water used for fire-fighting training purposes by the owners of private fire-fighting equipment as well as that used by fire authorities. In consequence, the amendment goes rather wider than that originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, during the Committee stage of the Bill. We commend the amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for not merely accepting the amendments but for extending their scope. The hour is late and I do not know in what fashion I can celebrate. A cold shower is the best I can think of at this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 118:
Page 92, line 33, after ("(a)") insert ("or (b)").
Page 92, line 36, after ("(a)") insert ("or (b)").
Page 92, line 39, at end insert—
("() In this section "fire authority" has the same meaning as in the Fire Services Act 1947.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 118A:
After Clause 81, insert the following new clause:

("Fixing of maximum charges for reselling water.

.—(1) The Director may from time to time fix maximum prices at which water supplied by water undertakers may be resold, and may publish the prices so fixed in such manner as in his opinion will secure adequate publicity for them.
(2) Different prices may be fixed under this section in different classes of cases which may be defined by reference to areas or any other relevant circumstances.
(3) If any person resells any water supplied by a water undertaker at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under this section and applicable thereto, the amount of the excess shall be recoverable by the person to whom the water was resold.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to admit to my old friend the Minister that there was no collaboration between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and myself in respect of Amendments Nos. 113D and 118A. Perhaps the noble Lord could have added his name to my amendment, but I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 118A not moved.]
Clause 82 [Initial Government holdings]:
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 118B:
Page 93, line 24, leave out ("and on such terms").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 118C. This is the wrong time of night to be dealing with a matter of this kind. I hope that the amendment will be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
The background of this matter is the history of privatisation over the past few years. Although all the privatisation initiatives of this Government have, taking the most narrow definition, succeeded in the sense that everything has been privatised, there has been a full gamut of types of success, if one may put it in that way. There have been those which have been grotesquely underpriced and those which have been so heavily priced that it has been necessary for them to be taken up by the undertakers rather than by the investors.
With regard to water, the risks of getting the flotation price wrong are not only very great but they virtually become certainties. We have discussed the question of the net asset value of the water and sewerage undertakings. It is well recognised that the figure is of the order of £27 billion. Even on a historic cost basis it is likely to be £8 billion. However, the best estimates available for the proceeds from privatisation are between £5 billion and £7 billion. On whatever basis it is taken, the privatisation of water will be an enormous give-away of public assets. The figures do not allow of any other interpretation.
That deals only with the privatisation itself. We do not yet know, and the Government refuse to say, how much of the existing debt of the water authorities, which accounts for more than £5 billion, will be written off. If the whole amount were to be written off, the loss in debt would nearly equal the receipts from the flotation, and the give-away would be complete. At best it is unlikely that the taxpayers will get more than £3 billion or £4 billion for assets which are valued at approximately £27 million. The case of water privatisation is the worst possible case for taxpayers getting a good return on a privatisation venture.
What we propose is something very simple, although one can see that its implementation might not be all that simple. Instead of being allotted under the traditional formula, there should be a tendering procedure. I have no doubt that the Minister will find many practical difficulties in that proposition. It has never been done before, and I have no doubt that it would cause great difficulty in the City, not least because many of the enormous fees which go to financial institutions for underwriting and supporting the privatisation would no longer be available in the same terms. I am sure that they will find very good reason for saying that it cannot be done because it has never been done before.
The amounts of money involved are so great that a serious effort must be made to avoid privatisation being the fiasco which we can confidently predict that it will be for the taxpayer. It will not be a fiasco
1244
for the financial advisers. It may not even be a fiasco for the investors, although that is a very fine line. The one group of people who we know will lose from privatisation will be the taxpayers and the water consumers.
This is a serious attempt to remedy part of that situation. It does not mean that we are converted to privatisation or that we are in favour of what the Government propose. It means that we show a serious determination to protect the taxpayer from some of the worst effects of privatisation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As your Lordships know, he has an unrivalled ability either to bring forward a debate or introduce a further debate at a later stage in the Bill, and he has done so again tonight. Tribute is due to him as it keeps us all very much on our toes.
Before I reply to the amendment perhaps I might point out what I believe is an error in Amendment No. 118C. I think that the reference to "subsection (1)" should read "subsection (2)". While the noble Lord considers that, I shall answer the amendment.
Contrary to what the noble Lord said, in the past on such occasions the Government have chosen to sell businesses by tender where it was felt that that would ensure the best price. However, tenders are sensitive to market conditions. Before the noble Lord jumps up to ask me what we have sold by tender, let me add that part of the British Airports Authority was for sale by tender. It was a Bill that I had the pleasure of taking through your Lordships' House and I am glad to see the effect of that has been so productive.
While not ruling out the possibility of such an approach in the privatisation of water, my concern with these amendments is that they seek to write on the face of the Bill an obligation to sell by tender. A decision on the best method of sale will be taken closer to the date of flotation, in the light of market conditions likely to be prevailing at the time of sale, to ensure a proper return to the Exchequer. Tenders may or may not prove to be the most effective means of doing that, as there is no certainty that sale by tender would lead to higher proceeds than other methods. In short, it would not be appropriate to legislate the means by which the sale should proceed as flexibility is necessary on these issues.
That is perhaps not quite the reply that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was expecting; but I hope I have dealt with the amendment with the due seriousness he would expect from me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the Minister treated the amendment with seriousness, though I do not think he appreciated the full significance of what is being said.
I have looked at whether the amendment should refer to "subsection (1)" or "subsection (2)". This is a multi-stage process and it looks as though the Minister is right that it is the second stage of the allotment of shares with which we should be

1245
concerned rather than the first stage. I am grateful to the noble Earl for that correction. That alone, apart from the lateness of the hour, would be enough to convince me not to press the amendment.
However, what the noble Earl says about previous flotations—excepting the British Airports Authority—does not give us confidence that water privatisation will produce the best value for taxpayers. Time after time the short-term gains on privatisations have been the result of the flotation price being set too low and substantial short-term gains being made by speculators. In this case I use "speculators" rather than "investors" advisedly.
Those gains were made at the expense of the taxpayer. When Amersham was floated, the price at the end of the first day represented a gain for speculators of 32 per cent. The figure for Associated British Ports was 23 per cent.; for British Aerospace, 14 per cent.; British Airways, 68 per cent.; British Gas, 25 per cent.; British Telecom, 86 per cent.; Cable and Wireless, 17 per cent.; Jaguar, 8 per cent.; and Rolls-Royce, 68 per cent. Some of these, I hasten to say, were on a part-paid shares basis. The only example of the Government not enriching the speculators was the selling off of the state-owned oil companies.
The history of privatisations from the point of view of the profit for the taxpayers' pocket is not a happy one. Many billions of pounds have been put directly from the taxpayers' pockets into the pockets of speculators. We have proposed a way of avoiding that. I suppose that it is encouraging even at this stage to learn that the Government have not set their face against sale by tender and that this may still be considered. I do not believe in his response to the amendment that the Minister has given full recognition to the dangers that exist in the privatisation proposals as they stand. I do not believe that taxpayers are going to be very reassured by the argument that the details should not find their way on to the face of the Bill. Because of the defect in the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118C not moved.]
Clause 85 [Conversion of certain loans]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 118E:
Page 95, line 17, at end insert—
("(1A) No order under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of so increasing the projected yield on any shares at issue beyond that projected from financial capital anticipated in accordance with the requirements of section 7(2Xb) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As the Minister will appreciate, we are on the same theme, but approaching it from a different angle. The effect of this amendment is to limit the yield in general terms rather than in the technical sense, on shares in water supply plcs after privatisation in such a way as to determine ex post facto that the net receipts of the flotation to the Treasury were maximised.
Its purpose is to prevent a repetition of using debt write-offs to produce the massive giveaways to investors that have been a feature of many previous privatisations. In this way it shall be possible to ensure that the flotation is not a vehicle whereby the taxpayer can be expected to further contribute to making the industry saleable. Only if this is done can fears be allayed that this privatisation is not to do with improving the standards and quality of water and sewerage services, but in fact refers to selling off public assets to allow private investors to make substantial speculative gains.
Much has been said about the proposed level and purpose of the intended write-off of loans to the water industry. For the moment it is accepted that the Government do not yet know what that level of write-off will be. There has thus far been little debate concerning the share price at which the water industry will be sold off. That is not wholly surprising since the Government have not even decided how many of the shares to sell off let alone at what price to do so. Doubtless the Government will say that it is too early to decide what price to put on the shares and that, even if they had done so, it would not have been within keeping of the normal practice to tell Parliament what that share price was to be.
As much was said to a Standing Committee in the other place by Mr. Michael Howard who claimed that while Parliament could decide on the principle of privatisation, it was for the Government to decide the mechanics and deal with matters of financial detail. That may well have been true of previous privatisations, but the Government should no longer be given such a free hand in the matter. Their record of privatisations and particularly as regards debt write-offs and pricing privatisation shares, is such as to warrant increased accountability to Parliament in relation to matters of mechanical and financial detail.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh has just given to the House a record that is absolutely lamentable. It is a record of substantially underpricing the flotation issues to the detriment of the taxpayer. In many cases there has been the write-off of substantial debts. My noble friend referred to a series of privatisations and indicated the percentage at which the shares had been sold at less than the public valued them. He mentioned Amersham and he gave the figure in percentage terms. The figure was £23 million; Associated British Ports, £5 million; British Aerospace, £21 million; British Airways, £317 million; British Gas, £503 million; British Telecom, £973 million; Cable and Wireless, £39 million; Jaguar, £24 million; Rolls-Royce, £465 million. That is a total of almost £2,400 million that the Treasury was gainsaid by the manner in which the shares were disposed of.
I remind the House that it is not only by adopting that method that money can be given away. I live in Enfield, and the Royal Small Arms factory there was the subject of a global sale by the Government of the ordnance factories to British Aerospace. The valuation put on the Enfield small arms factory and the explosives unit at Waltham Abbey was £1.5 million. The factories stand in hundreds of acres of land with a development potential. British

1247
Aerospace has now closed down those factories and is seeking planning permission which if granted—that is a matter for the local council—will make the land worth anything up to £100 million. It may come as a surprise to the Minister and his colleagues, but that valuation was made by Jack Dromey on behalf of the shop stewards and the workers. All that has come to pass was predicted.
The sale was stoutly defended by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when I raised the matter at that time. At the end of the day the taxpayer will receive £1.5 million for assets which will eventually be seen to be worth £100 million. British Aerospace will recoup what it paid for 12 factories from the sale of one. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has pointed out who gains—the financial advisers, the investment brokers and the public relations firms. The shareholders who buy may very well gain. But the taxpayer whose assets are being sold will be the prime loser.
The Minister will tell us that what we propose is not technically possible or that the amendment is in some other way defective. The noble Earl must explain how he will stop the haemorrhaging of money from the public purse. The investing public may make a killing or the company itself may make a killing. We say that public assets which are being sold against our will should be sold at a fair and proper price. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is essential that the Government have the flexibility to create a capital structure which best suits the requirements of a successful flotation and reflects the market conditions at the time. In exercising the powers provided by the Bill to create an appropriate capital structure Ministers will act properly and they will be accountable to Parliament for the results. One dimension of this will be assessing the appropriate level of debt in the opening balance sheet.
I make these points generally because, although the noble Lord's words were helpful in explaining his intention, I still do not feel it is certain what effect the amendment would have. It seems to make it impossible to privatise the water plcs because it would appear to limit the extent of writing off debts owed to the National Loans Fund. The noble Lord did not comment on that but that is how I interpret the amendment.
All such debts must be extinguished before the water industry passes into the public sector. That does not mean that all the £5·5 billion of debts will be substantively written off, because we will create new securities in the form of shares and debentures which will take the place of national loans fund lendings. But as I have said before, all NLF debt must be extinguished and any provision which seeks to constrain that operation puts the flotation at risk.
In summary, I return to the assurances we have given before. In making what will undoubtedly be difficult judgments about capital structure we shall strike a balance which protects the interests of investors, water users, the taxpayer and the company
1248
managements. We shall have to justify our decisions to Parliament but the restriction proposed here would not help us to get that decision right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I know that the Minister will rest his case on the fact that he has taken the best available advice. He will be advised to do things in a certain way. I simply draw to his attention the fact that the advice which the Government sought in the case of Amersham, the British Airports Authority, British Aerospace, and so on, resulted in the taxpayer being denied more than £2 billion which went into the pockets of investors.
In the political philosophy of the Minister, he may think that it is not unreasonable for those who are prepared to risk a little of their own money to receive a great deal of public money for so doing. But it is anathema to those on this side of the House. Moreover, the Minister may think that it is reasonable in the case of the sale of the ordnance factories, to which I referred, that the authorities were advised that the value they should place on the sale of the Enfield and Waltham Abbey factories was £1.5 million.
I turn now to the Government's record in connection with the £2.5 billion received from the privatisations and also in connection with the potential sale of a site in Enfield which they sold for £1.5 million and which now turns out to be worth £100 million. Can the Minister say what action the Government intend to take, or the kind of apology they will make to the House and to the taxpayer, if comparable circumstances emerge on the sale of water?
By his eloquent silence the Minister has expressed more than perhaps any words could convey. In fact, there will be no explanation and no apology; the public is being invited to read that the Minister said it would be most difficult to stop the haemorrhaging of public assets into private pockets—some of them individual, some of them companies—and in fact it will be impossible to do so. In other words, the picture which my noble friend and I have painted reflects the facts of life which cannot be changed.
I think that it is a disgraceful defence of the public interest in these matters; but that is the justification by the Minister for rejecting the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 118D:
After Clause 99, insert the following new clause:

("Local access to fishing.

It shall be the duty of all water companies when disposing of land adjoining lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams or otherwise, or when disposing of fishing rights themselves, to take proper and reasonable steps to ensure that they safeguard customary local access to fishing along the lines practised by the water authorities themselves hitherto.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport. I know that the question of fishing rights was raised in Committee, but I am anxious to discover what the Government's

1249
attitude is towards safeguarding what may be described as the customary rights of access of local people to fishing.
It so happens that the water supplies of this country are situated largely in sparsely populated areas. The reservoirs which were built in the last century, and some in this century, were of necessity in country areas where among the few enjoyments which people had were the customary rights of fishing. Such rights were dealt with in various ways; indeed, different public authorities dealt with them in different ways. Some dealt with them sensitively and in a most civilised way, while others did not.
However, by and large throughout the country there was a general recognition that customary rights of local people to fishing access should be safeguarded, otherwise fishing was in danger of becoming the simple prerogative of the rich—or, at least, of the very rich suburban and urban angling clubs. Therefore, this is a matter of great importance to those areas where most of our water comes from.
It was about 27 years ago now that I moved an amendment in another place to the Clywedog Reservoir Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was there and, indeed, I see that a few more of my present colleagues were also there. The amendment was to provide the local people with preferential rights regarding fishing. That was dealt with by the then river authority, and was subsequently continued by the Severn Trent authority, by granting fishing rights in that particular instance to the local angling association. Therefore people who wanted to fish simply joined the local angling association and achieved access in that way. There was a differential fee as between local people and visitors.
In other authority areas it was done by having one fee for local people and a different one for visitors. It is an important amenity in country areas. If one is merely to maximise the profit from the sale of water rights in that way on privatisation, it could be argued that because fishing rights are an important amenity they should go to the highest bidder. That would not be the desire of most citizens in this country. Generally a sense of fair play and civilised behaviour would dictate that it is desirable to continue what has been the practice, manifested in a variety of different ways, which is why I have couched the amendment in the way that I have. It will ensure that those rights are safeguarded.
The purpose of moving the amendment is to probe the Government's mind on this matter. I have looked carefully at Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive. They lay general duties on the Secretary of State and other people in respect of various rights. A good deal of time has rightly been spent on safeguarding environmental rights, flora and fauna and so on, but there is no provision to deal with fishing rights. It is an important human right in those areas.
I happen to come from an area which supplies a great deal of water through the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn Trent Authority. My old constituency had two of the largest reservoirs in the country, and I border the constituency that contains the Elan Valley which has many more reservoirs. It
1250
is a matter of great public concern. I am seeking to direct the Government's mind to a problem which needs to be dealt with sensitively and in a civilised way. I hope that the Government can give an indication that they regard the way in which the amendment is drafted as providing at least a desirable code of practice for the future authorities that will control the water. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is to ensure that the successor companies of the water authorities, when disposing of land adjoining water or when disposing of fishing rights, give the same importance to preserving local access to fishing as the water authorities do now. It is the Government's policy that the Bill must contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that recreation is in no way adversely affected by privatisation. Hence the provisions in Clause 8 which impose on the privatised water industry the existing statutory obligations of the water authorities to provide for recreation.
It is, however, our view that the amendment should not be accepted. There are two reasons for this. First, the requirement in the amendment that the companies
"take proper and reasonable steps . . . along the lines practised by the water authorities themselves hitherto"
is too loose to have any impact in practice. I may say that I fully understand the difficulty confronting anyone trying to enshrine in legislation rules designed to perpetuate existing practices.
The second reason why the amendment should not be accepted is that what it attempts to achieve will in fact be more adequately provided for through the new clause inserted on Thursday after Clause 150 as a consequence of a government amendment. Because of this clause the companies will have to secure the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of any lands, including fishing rights, which they inherit from the water authorities. Furthermore, in the case of lands of special amenity value—that is, land in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Broads and other areas designated by the Secretary of State—any consent by the Secretary of State may be subjected to conditions designed to protect the amenity value to the public of the lands and waters.
However, we shall consider whether in a code of practice on recreation and conservation we can say anything helpful about the preference for local people in respect of fishing rights. I hope that with those remarks the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the indications he has given. It was not my intention to press the amendment; it was really a probing amendment. It is, however, important that in their code of practice the Government should give a clear indication. I do not believe that anything less would suffice. It is not enough to rely upon the reservoirs being in the national parks. It so happens that the areas I have mentioned, although beautiful, are not national parks.

1251
It is not a simply a question of safeguarding the amenity but of safeguarding local rights. I can see that the noble Lord has taken the point on board. I hope that mature thought will result in clear guidance in the code of practice or through whatever means the Government decide for dealing with the matter. On the basis of the reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 100 [Registration of statutory water companies under the Companies Act 1985]:
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 118F:
Page 108, line 6, after ("being") insert ("or will be, subject to the issue of a certificate under section 688 of the said Act of 1985").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 118G, 119, 120 and 120A. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a statutory water company can make a decision to convert to a plc, adopt a memorandum and articles of association and seek the Secretary of State's approval to that adoption at one and the same time. I believe that that was the original intention of Clause 100, but as drafted it could be interpreted as requiring a statutory water company to convert to plc. In so doing it would become a company governed by the Companies Act 1985 before it was able to propose the adoption of a memorandum and articles and seek the Secretary of State's approval to them.
In certain circumstances, that could leave the statutory water company in an unsatisfactory constitutional position if the proposed memorandum and articles were not then adopted for any reason. The subsequent amendments are of a technical and drafting nature. I believe the amendments are sensible. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in drawing to the attention of the House the undoubted practical advantages envisaged from these amendments. I have to say that I am taking advice on them because they are quite complicated and raise drafting and procedural problems. It is for that reason that I fear that I cannot accept them as they stand. I have to say to my noble friend that it is not clear that the complexities arising from a concept of a conditional resolution can be overcome.
Notwithstanding that, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I shall look carefully at the arguments which he has adduced in support of the amendment. I should be happy to meet him between now and the next stage to see whether we can overcome the difficulties. There are legal problems, so I cannot give him too much hope that we shall be able to meet his concerns. We register them and I hope that he will take the opportunity of meeting me between now and another stage.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his response, although somewhat disappointed. I am grateful for his assurance that he will give further consideration to these important points. In consequence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118G, 119, 120 and 120A not moved.]
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 120B:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Replacement of borrowing powers of registered water companies.
.—(1) Where—

(a) provision relating to borrowed monies of a registered water company is for the time being contained in local statutory provisions; and

(b) the company for the time being holds an appointment under Chapter 1 of this Part,

that company may subject to the following provisions of this section by special resolution propose that those local statutory provisions shall cease to have effect and that other provisions shall have effect in substitution for them.
(2) If the Secretary of State by order approves proposals by a registered water company in accordance with subsection (1) above, the local statutory provisions in question shall cease to have effect and any provision to be substituted therefore shall have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above in relation to a registered water company unless it appears to him—

(a) that neither an application under section (procedure for replacing borrowing powers) below with respect to the company's proposals nor an appeal with respect to the subject-matter of such an application is pending and that the time within which any such application or appeal may be made or brought has expired; and

(b) where there is—

(i) a division of the mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of the company into different classes; and

(ii) that the local statutory provisions which are to cease to have effect will be replaced by other provisions which will replace, vary, modify, compromise or release the rights attached to any such class or by obligations to repay or redeem the said mortgages,debentures or debenture stock,

that a consent to or approval to such proposals has been given under subsection (4) below in respect of each class the rights attached to which would be so replaced, varied, modified, compromised or released if the order were made.
(4) A consent or approval of a proposal is given for the purposes of subsection (3Xb) above in respect of a class of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock if—

(a) consent in writing to the proposal has been given by the holders of not less than three-quarters, in nominal value, of the issued mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of that class; or

(b) an extraordinary resolution approving the proposal is passed at a separate general meeting of the holders of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of that class;

and for the purpose of determining whether the requirements specified in subsection (3)(b) above are satisfied in relation to any two or more classes of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock in a registered water company, it shall be immaterial that consents and approvals have been given in respect of different classes in accordance with different paragraphs of this subsection.
(5) The provisions of the company's registered memorandum and articles (in the case of a registered water company) or the provisions of Table A as prescribed by regulations having effect under section 8 of the Companies Act 1985 (in the case of a

1253
statutory water company not registered under Chapter II of Part XXII of the said Act of 1985) shall extend mutatis mutandis for the purpose of convening and regulating separate general meetings of holders of mortgages, debentures or debenture stock and the passing of extraordinary resolutions thereat as if the said holders were members of the company and the meetings were meetings of the company.
(6) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (2) above in relation to any company and it appears to him to be appropriate to do so for the purposes of, or in consequence of, the approval contained in the order, he may by order repeal or amend any local statutory provision.
(7) The power to make an order under subsection (2) or (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and an order under subsection (6) above may—

(a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons or circumstances; and

(b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(8) Sections 239 and 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 shall not apply to anything done in connection with or pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(9) In this section and section (procedure for replacing borrowing powers) below—
"debenture" and "extraordinary resolution" have the same respective meanings as in the Companies Act 1985;
"registered water company" means any statutory water company to which a certificate under section 688 of that Act has been issued (whether before or after the transfer date).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 120C. It may be recalled that during the Committee stage I moved clauses similar to these. My noble friend Lord Hesketh expressed at that time general sympathy with the aims of the clauses but had some reservations. In the light of those reservations I have since carefully examined the clauses with the assistance of advisers to the Water Companies' Association. The result is now before your Lordships.
I am advised that, as presently drafted, the Bill could leave a statutory water company which converts to a plc in an impossible constitutional position. The Bill provides procedures for a statutory water company to move away from its present constitution based on local acts and orders to a plc structure under the Companies Act 1985. Notwithstanding this, the new plc would still be subject to local statutory provisions governing its borrowings and borrowing powers. It is the interaction of those provisions together with new powers which will have been obtained under the memorandum and articles of association adopted under the provisions of Clause 100 which gives rise to the impossible constitutional position.
These new clauses are intended to rectify that situation by providing a procedure under which a company can make a proposal to its lenders to replace by other provisions the rights and documentation relating to those loans. Any such proposal to lenders would require the approval of each class of lenders affected and give minorities the same rights to apply to the High Court as if they were a member of a statutory water company considering conversion to a plc. The new clauses disapply certain provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 which were
1254
not designed to apply to this sort of situation but which would otherwise place lenders in a position of some jeopardy. If the approval of lenders is obtained and the company so approves by special resolution, the new clauses require an order from the Secretary of State to approve the new provisions and then to repeal the redundant local statutory provisions.
I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Bill to place statutory water companies which wish to convert to plcs in a position of constitutional disadvantage. I therefore hope that these amendments will receive the support of the Government. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth for taking on board so much of what my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at an earlier stage. My noble friend undoubtedly has some very sound arguments. However, I must say to my noble friend that I still have some important reservations on his proposals. For example, while shareholders are jointly members of the company and it is therefore appropriate to consider changing their rights by majority vote, debenture holders have an individual relationship with the company and it is far from clear that a majority vote should override the rights of minorities unless the debenture holders have individually agreed to accept such voting provisions.
Despite these difficulties, I repeat that my noble friend has some very good arguments which I should like to consider further with him. If we got together, we may be able to resolve the problem. If my noble friend will withdraw the amendments, I shall certainly meet him between now and another stage to see if we can reach agreement.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am again most grateful to my noble friend for his reception of this proposal. I shall be more than happy to meet him in the interim. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120C not moved.]
Clause 101 [Procedure for cancelling resolutions for substituting memorandum and articles]:
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 110, line 10, leave out from ("value") to end of line 12 and insert ("of the company's issued share capital or issued stock;
() by the holders of not less, in the aggregate, than fifteen per cent., in nominal value, of the issued shares or stock of any class in respect of which a consent to or approval of the proposal to which the resolution relates is required for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) of that section; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 122 and 123. Noble Lords may recall that in Committee I moved an amendment to this clause—Amendment No. 99—which sought to remove the possibility of damaging and long delays in the conversion of statutory water companies to plcs. The

1255
clause as originally drafted would have enabled a minority of shareholders to block the conversion process, at least temporarily, even though an overwhelming majority of shareholders had given approval to the conversion proposals. It was that situation which my amendment sought to rectify. I withdrew that amendment following an assurance from my noble friend Lord Hesketh that what I had said would be considered most carefully.
It is following that consideration that I have put down the amendment to line 50. It will enable the court to order an award of compensation if it finds that the interests of a minority have been unfairly prejudiced. Previously its only powers would have been either to set aside the resolution passed by the overwhelming majority of shareholders or to order the purchase of shares, thus delaying the process of conversion. This additional power substantially diminishes that possibility while still enabling the court to set aside a resolution in extreme cases.
My noble friend also undertook at Committee stage that amendments would be tabled to bring the rights awarded to minorities to access to the courts more closely into line with the Companies Act. The amendments to lines 10 and 18 have that effect.
I hope that these amendments will receive the support of my noble friend and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth show that if one perseveres one will succeed. It is third time lucky. We are always keen to improve the Bill and we end today's proceedings as we began, by recommending acceptance of the amendment and the two consequential amendments.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 110, line 18, leave out ("under that subsection or for the purposes of) and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 110, line 50, at end insert ("or for the payment of compensation to such members").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LEGISLATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LEGISLATION