Sitting of 15 June 1989

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 May], That the Bill be now read a Third time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 22 June.

  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 22 June.

  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To he read a Second time on Thursday 22 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Teenage Crime
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Conservative Family Campaign regarding teenage crime.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I have received two letters from the Conservative Family Campaign about young people's involvement in crime. I greatly welcome the growing interest in the role of the family in steering young children away from crime. The fact that the peak age for offending in this country is 15 underscores the truth that the family is our country's first line of defence. Parents and teachers have a clear responsibility to instil into children habits of self-discipline and respect for others.
    Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to respond positively to the family campaign and say what action he will take in the light of its suggestions and recommendations? In so doing, will he welcome the emphasis that the family campaign puts upon the responsibility of parents in an age when we hear all too much about individuals' rights? Will he furthermore take the opportunity to confirm the Government's commitment to parents and to the concept of the family unit?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, and I have tried to do that in my earlier answer and on several other occasions. I agree with my hon. Friend. As regards his first point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), will be receiving leaders of the campaign shortly to go through with them the specific proposals that they have made.
    Mr. Marlow: As the majority of teenage crime arises from bravado, should not retribution be swift, painful and humiliating? Could the Government look again at the possibility of introducing corporal punishment, or alternatively some humiliating punishment like the stocks in modern guise?
    Mr. Hurd: The House considered the matter not long ago. I remember the debate and I remember its conclusion. If the matter were put to the House again, I am not sure that it would reach a different conclusion. It is worth noting that as a result of the efforts that have been made the number of juveniles sentenced or cautioned has fallen substantially from 170,000 in 1984 to 140,000 in 1987.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is often boredom rather than bravado which leads young people into mischief and crime? Is it not about time that he talked not just to Conservative party committees but to British local authorities which desperately want to supply leisure facilities and the creative leisure that the French are so much better at providing? Is it not about time that we took on an Eté Jeunes programme, which the French have and which has been so successful in reducing crime in French inner cities?
    Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman went up and down the country he would find a number of different organisations

    1107
    in Staffordshire and Humberside, for instance, where the police are putting into effect on the ground precisely the schemes that he wishes to encourage. That is already going on and I hope that the Labour party and Labour local authorities will do their best to encourage it.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were fined for non-payment of television licence fees in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): The following information has been supplied by the national TV licence records office and relates to the number of convictions in each of the financial years 1 April to 31 March:

    Number

    1984–85

    110,042

    1985–86

    123,122

    1986–87

    174,509

    1987–88

    158,182

    1988–89

    172,604

    Mr. Thurnham: Bolton magistrates court tells me that these are by far the most miserable of all the fines that it has to collect as 60 per cent. of those fined are female, many of them single mothers with young children, and there are known cases of women having to resort to prostitution to pay their fines. Is it not high time that my hon. Friend brought in a subscription pay-as-you-view revenue system for the BBC instead of listening to Mr. Hussey saying that people like paying their licence fees to fund a grossly overstaffed BBC?
    Mr. Renton: I listened with care to my hon. Friend. We accept that people with limited means may find it hard to pay the BBC licence fee. For that reason, we are doing two things. We are encouraging the BBC to develop other streams of income—for example, through subscription—and, from this September, we will introduce a pay-as-you-go instalment scheme. A successful pilot scheme has been run and, as from September, it will be possible gradually throughout the country for the television licence fee to be paid quarterly.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that many pensioners are caught up in this problem? The Government should be ashamed of themselves? [Interruption.] The Tories may laugh, but this is a serious matter for pensioners. We have asked regularly for all pensioners to be treated the same and to have a £5 television licence instead of the increase that the Government have introduced. Why do we not have fairness so that pensioners can keep themselves out of court and enjoy their later days? The Government are unfair to the elderly. Let us have the Minister at the Dispatch box saying that he will come my way.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the Labour party policy review with the precise attention that I would have expected. The review says that the BBC licence fee is the core of the BBC's income for the future. To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would remove £400 million from the BBC. The only way to recoup that would
    1108
    be to put up the licence fee by about half for everyone else. The hon. Gentleman has not thought his argument through, but that is no surprise.
    Mr. Redwood: Does the Minister think that under the pressure of satellite broadcasting and commercial television the BBC's audience share might be so low that this method of financing would no longer be appropriate?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that as we are giving our blessing to a new terrestrial channel—Channel 5—to be financed by advertising and subscription, and in view of the number of satellite channels that are coming and the increasing success of cable, the BBC in its forward planning for the 1990s will be thinking carefully about what it should do if its audience share falls in the way suggested by my hon. Friend so that the continuance of the licence fee would be an intolerable burden on many households who are willing to look at channels other than the BBC.

    Police (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning police provision in Leicestershire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Twenty seven extra police posts were approved for Leicestershire in April so that a total of 54 have been approved since May 1979. In addition, some 130 police officers have been returned to operational duties as a result of civilianisation and other efficiency measures.
    The police authority has applied for my right hon. Friend's approval of 75 more posts in 1990–91. Our aim is to announce decisions on this, and applications from other authorities, towards the end of this year.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that one of the few areas in which the Members of Parliament for Leicestershire agree, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), is that we do not have nearly enough police, that the level of crime, which has doubled since the Conservatives came to office, is insupportable, and that it was wrong to turn down the applications of two successive chief constables for a considerable increase in the number of policemen? Is he aware that all Members of Parliament for the area have expressed in the House their view that it is not safe for people to go out at night in parts of Leicester because there are not enough policemen on the beat and that the Government's continued refusal to accept the recommendations of chief constables is unworthy and wrong?
    Mr. Hogg: I have good news for Leicestershire. As I have said, we have increased police posts by 54, a process of civilianisation has freed 130 officers for operational duties and that process is continuing. There is more good news. In 1978–79 expenditure on the Leicestershire constabulary was £15·65 million. In the current year it is £57 million—a huge increase. There is more good news. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have noticed that in 1988 there was a fall of 9·3 per cent. in sexual offences and 5·7 per cent. in burglaries. All that is good news and it is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not point out those facts.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the recent announcement of an increase in police for Leicestershire has been widely welcomed, although it may not be an ideal figure? Will my hon. Friend congratulate the force on the tremendous strides that it has taken towards civilianisation? Is it not a fact that spending on police in England and Wales has been higher than spending on almost any other area of government during this Administration?
    Mr Hogg: As one would expect from my hon. Friend, he has given a comprehensive summary of the position. I am sure that the House would like to know that spending this year, compared with the last year of the Labour Government, is 54·9 per cent. up in real terms—a huge increase. We never hear any mention of that from the empty Opposition Benches.
    As regards the efficiency of the Leicestershire constabulary, it is a great pity that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) did not draw attention to its exceptionally high clear-up rate—42·8 per cent., compared with 35·2 per cent. in England and Wales. I am also glad to say that the county has a much lower crime rate of 5,712 per 100,000 of population, compared with 7,396 in England and Wales, excluding the City and Metropolitan police.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall make slow progress if we have long answers.

    Child Crime (Parental Responsibility)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking steps to make parents responsible for the criminal activity of their children.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The great majority of the 100 or so letters that we have received in the past few months support the idea. Many specific provisions already existing in law are, however, little used. For example, the power to impose a curfew on juvenile offenders was used by the courts on only eight occasions in 1986 and 1987.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that his ideas for greater parental involvement in the consequences of children offending has received widespread acclaim throughout Britain? Is it not a tragedy, however, that the powers of curfew have been so seldom used? Will my hon. Friend comment on the suggestion that that is because some probation officers have refused to co-operate in the implementation of such orders?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I greatly welcome the support in the majority of the correspondence that the Home Office has received for our radical and far-reaching new ideas to deal with offending by children. I am advised that there have been problems with some probation officers about co-operating with the courts. In 1985, the National Association of Probation Officers made it its policy not to co-operate with the courts in enforcing and supervising supervision orders. That is extraordinary because probation officers are officers of the court. If they will not fulfil their responsibilities, we may have to look for others who will.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that attempting to make parents somehow responsible for the criminal activities of their children is entirely superficial and misses the point? Is he further aware that there has been a most alarming upsurge in crime by adolescents in the United States in recent years and that within five to 10 years a similar situation will develop here because Britain is following closely the social and economic policies pursued in the United States? Should not the Minister go for a far deeper study of the causes of crime by adolescents in Britain rather than grasping at the chimeras offered by Conservative Members?
    Mr. Patten: During the past year the ministerial group on crime prevention—on which 13 different Government Departments are represented—has been conducting an in-depth study of the causes of crime among children and young people. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is absolutely right that we must search for those causes. I do not believe, however, that the search would be aided by simply dismissing parental responsibility for the behaviour of children as something of no importance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the family is the first line of defence against crime by children.
    I do not believe that on every occasion trends in the United States are followed 10 or 15 years later in this country. In the past 10 years we have seen a welcome, though slight, reduction in juvenile crime. What alarms my right hon. Friend and myself is that the peak age for offending remains at 15. We are determined to do something about that.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that many young children are drawn into crime as a result of addiction to amusement-with-prizes machines in arcades and that many parents, responsible and irresponsible, are involved in such distressing cases, will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider my Bill, which has support on both sides of the House and would give discretion to local authorities to ban under-16s from amusement arcades?
    Mr. Patten: I know of my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in this important issue and of the way in which he has dealt with it in the proposals that he has put to Ministers and in his Bill. He is a model of how such a campaign should be conducted. We believe, however, that we should respond to the need for change in the criminal justice system when, to borrow my hon. Friend's phrase, there is clear evidence of a link between addiction and criminality. Independent research carried out by the Home Office's internationally renowned research and planning unit, which is independent in the way in which it conducts its business, supported by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, produced no evidence of such a link. If my hon. Friend and those who support him in his campaign can come forward with firm evidence we shall, of course, reconsider the issue.
    Mr. Heffer: May I ask the Minister to take more seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the reasons for child crime? Surely the suggestion that parents are responsible for all the criminal activity of their children is not a serious one, although it is a populist demand on the part of some Conservative Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]. There are many Members of Parliament whose

    1111
    children have committed criminal activities. We all know of next-door neighbours and so on whose children have carried out criminal acts. Parents are in no way responsible.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is a superficial suggestion.
    Mr. Heffer: Exactly. Of course there is a connection between parents and their children's criminal activity up to a point, but it is a minor one. We must consider this issue much more carefully. I ask the Minister to ignore totally the irresponsible and populist demands that have been made by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Patten: I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his well-known upholding of Christian values about which he has told this House on many occasions since I have been here, should feel that parents have no responsibility for their children. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, it is critically important to appreciate that the first and best line of defence against offending not just by juveniles, but by children under 10 who commit some 6,000 offences each year, are the parents. I believe that the country appreciates that. I entirely accept that a thuggish, 16-year-old young man may be difficult for a single parent to control, but I do not accept that the parent of an eight, nine or 10-year-old should be exonerated from providing care and attention.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making extremely slow progress. I ask for brief questions and briefer answers to them.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that the peak age for criminal activity is school age. Much of that criminal activity takes place during school hours. Will my hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get schools to check that pupils are attending on a lesson basis rather than on a half-day basis and to ensure that education authorities speed up the process of taking parents to court when children are truanting? The court process should also be speeded up so that it no longer takes between 18 months and two years to bring a truanting child and his parents to court.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes three important points. Such discussions have taken place between my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science in recent months. In addition, we are delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked the National Curriculum Council to consider the inclusion of lessons on parenthood and responsibility in the national curriculum. That is an important suggestion.

    Cross Report
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any conclusions have yet been reached following the Cross report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: Lord Cross delivered his arbitration on matters of dispute between the Horserace Betting Levy
    1112
    Board and the Horserace Totalisator Board in 1979. We have had no reason to question the acceptance of the arbitration by both boards since then.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will realise that 10 years of peace are about to be broken. The proliferation of tote facilities at race courses is now seriously jeopardising on-course bookmakers. Ahead of privatisation, in the not-too-distant future, that proliferation could well result in a problem landing on my hon. Friend's doorstep. I ask him, therefore, to look seriously at the present acceleration in the siting of tote facilities at race courses which is driving away small bookmakers.
    Mr. Patten: I have enjoyed more or less a decade of detente with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and I hope that hostilities are not about to break out over this of all issues, which we have discussed on several occasions in a variety of settings over the years.
    We look to the levy board for advice on this issue, but we have had no such advice from it. However, I believe that the representative bookmakers association has written to the chairman of the levy board, Sir Ian Trethowan, about this and we await his views with interest.

    Crime (Greater Manchester)
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making towards reducing the level of crime in the Greater Manchester area.
    Mr. Hurd: In the first quarter of 1989, offences recorded by the Greater Manchester police fell by 4·5 per cent. compared with the same period in 1988. The two largest categories—burglary and theft, and handling stolen goods —fell by 14·6 per cent. and 3·1 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bury is one of the safest places to live in Greater Manchester, with a fall in recorded crime of 4·5 per cent. compared with last year's figures? Will he join me in saluting that achievement and in thanking the local police, who are obviously part of it, together with all those in the community who are promoting greater involvement—there are now 320 home watch schemes—and the local paper, the Bury Times, which has made the public aware of the greater dangers which face the elderly in particular?
    Mr. Hurd: I know that Bury, Bolton and several of the old Lancashire towns within the Greater Manchester police area have made great progress and have forged ahead. It is good news that there are now 8,000 home watch schemes in that police area. There must be some connection—a close connection I believe—between all the efforts that my hon. Friend describes and the fall in total recorded crime in the area not just in the first quarter of this year, but with last year's decrease of 8 per cent. compared with 1987.
    Mrs. Peacock: I hope that when looking at the great progress that has been made in the Greater Manchester area my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded to go along the lines recently suggested especially in urging parents not to be responsible for their children's criminal

    1113
    activities. Does he agree that it is absolute nonsense not to hold parents responsible? I hope that my right hon. Friend will make that positive move in the rest of his work.
    Mr. Hurd: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Exchanges earlier this afternoon have shown the wide interest and support for the general principle that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has floated.

    Drink-related Crime
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made any recent studies of methods used in the United States of America in combating drink-related crime; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Experience internationally—the failures as well as the successes—is taken into account as we work out policy. We have done a lot to tackle alcohol misuse here through crime prevention. We have also strengthened the powers of licensing justices and the law on sales to under-age drinkers, and I have approved experimental byelaws in seven areas to ban the consumption of alcohol in public places.
    Mr. Atkinson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in response to rising drink-related crime among young people, every American state has now raised its legal drinking age to 21? Will he ensure that the lessons of that experience will be considered not only by his Department but by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which is chaired by our right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council?
    Mr. Hurd: I believe that my hon. Friend is right in saying that all the American states have raised the legal drinking age to 21, and I gather that a lively debate about that degree of prohibition is still in progress. I would rather ensure that our own law, under which the legal drinking age is 18, is enforced effectively, and that magistrates and police are reminded of the powers that they already have to deal with disorderly pubs or places where under-age drinking occurs. I agree, however, that we must keep an eye on what happens in the United States as a result of the change.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary knows that the work of his own research unit shows that disorder and drunkenness go together, not so much in the rural regions as in the non-metropolitan areas. That research was invaluable in pinpointing the sites of such disorder. In the light of what it has shown, will the Home Secretary do two things? First, will he talk to the traditional friends of the Conservative party—the brewers—about their advertising and about helping to enforce our existing drinking laws? Secondly, may I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to give local authorities and others involved in youth work the resources to provide young people with creative leisure, which—whatever the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) may say—they do not enjoy at present?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course my right hon. Friend the Lord President, as chairman of the ministerial group, is constantly in touch with the drinks industry, and we co-operate closely with the industry in such matters. The
    1114
    link between drinking and disorder which the hon. Gentleman has accurately described is contrary to the industry's interests, so it is naturally on our side.
    I repeat what I said before: a mass of schemes exist to provide leisure facilities, and I do not think that young people in this country have ever had more such facilities. The difficulty is that expectations of excitement are also much greater than they have ever been. The matter cannot be dealt with just as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Barry Field: Can my right hon. Friend reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as the brewing industry, that one of the American methods that he will not be studying is prohibition?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, Sir.

    Licensing Laws
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce further legislation to liberalise the licensing laws in England.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: No, Sir, but we shall keep the position under review.
    Mr. Knox: Following the success of the recent legislation, does my hon. Friend consider that there is a case for taking modest steps towards further liberalisation in the near future?
    Mr. Hogg: When we have seen such a case, we have taken steps. We do not see a case for further steps at present.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that what is needed now is not a further liberalisation of the licensing laws, but a tightening up of efforts to stop people who have been drinking in licensing hours from driving on our roads? Instead of introducing more time in which people can drink, should not more steps be taken to prevent them from endangering the lives of others and killing on the roads after drinking?
    Mr. Hogg: That is a very general point, and of course it is correct as far as it goes.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend taking steps to establish from the police the exact results of the liberalisation of licensing laws? Is he aware that—certainly in the south-west, and in particular in my constituency, where there have been a few moments of disorder at closing time in the past—the liberalising of licensing hours has been of enormous benefit, not only to people who have indulged in recreational drinking but to the police? Will he assure the House that he will report on the police attitude to the liberalisation that has already taken place?
    Mr. Hogg: The police attitude has been broadly favourable and along the lines outlined by my hon. Friend. That is also the feeling of the justices, in so far as they are able to make an assessment at present. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be conducting a survery of alcohol consumption and drinking patterns for the Department of Health in the autumn against which to measure the effects of longer opening hours, and I imagine that a summary of its conclusions will be made available to the House in due course.

    Crack
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he has taken recently to prevent imports of the drug crack; to what extent organised crime is involved in crack imports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I take very seriously indeed the threat posed by cocaine and its derivative crack, not only to this country but to the whole of Europe. That is why I called the meeting last month of the Council of Europe's drug co-operation group, the Pompidou group.
    The initiatives we have taken include the provision of £1·8 million of drug-related help to Latin American countries over the past three years; posting drug liaison officers to countries on the cocaine trafficking routes; working hard to develop international agreements and bilateral agreements to confiscate the assets of convicted drug traffickers; setting up Customs teams to combat cocaine smuggling; and calling an international conference next year to look at reducing the demand for drugs and, in particular, for cocaine.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I welcome that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that fighting organised crime before it gets a grip on Britain, particularly from the point of veiw of crack, is of the highest possible priority and that we may have to invest now to avoid serious outbreaks of crime in the future? Is he aware that hon. Members who were in Newark, New Jersey last year during the presidential election campaign were told that they should not leave the hotel for fear of being attacked by crack-crazed youngsters aged under 16?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Under-Secretary, who is chairman of the ministerial group on drug misuse, has visited the United States even more recently. All the information that he has come back with and everything that we have heard directly from the enforcement agencies in America confirms the anxiety that my hon. Friend voices. That is why we are taking such energetic action in time.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Home Secretary aware that this is yet another example of seeing what was happening in the United States five years ago and projecting it on here? I asked a parliamentary question about crack some four years ago—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to think that this is a flippant subject. The Home Secretary must make sure that far more study of the problem takes place in the United States to anticipate what will happen in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that instead of making cuts in the number of Customs and Excise officers, he should increase the numbers of enforcement officers at the ports of entry to try to intercept this evil drug before it takes over our youth?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the number of Customs officers employed in this work—and he is right about their importance—has been substantially increased.
    Mr. Wheeler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee will be visiting Washington and the United States next week to investigate this very subject. The members of that committee dare to go where others fear to tread, to see for themselves how the drugs menace has impacted on American society. Does my right
    1116
    hon. Friend agree that our defences in this country are well prepared at airports and seaports, that our police and Customs are working well together and that while so far the seizures of crack have been low, we are preparing a plan to deal with the future?
    Mr. Hurd: That is exactly the position. We must, and we do, keep in touch with experience in the United States. Our defences must be in advance, beyond our shores, in America and in Europe on the cocaine and heroin smuggling routes. They must be at our ports and airports, and that is important in the discussion of 1992. They must be in our cities, with our police, and they must be in our schools and in our homes in persuading parents and children that these are routes not to happiness and power but to disgrace and misery.

    Prison Building
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's prison building programme.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Eight new prisons have been opened since 1985, seven are under construction and one, which has been converted from existing buildings at Banstead in Surrey, will open shortly. Five more are planned to start on site this year, and eight are at various stages of planning and design. The building programme also covers the expansion and improvement of existing establishments. By the end of this year nearly 2,000 new places will have been added to existing establishments in a period of less then two years. By the mid-1990s we will have added about 25,000 places to the system. The prison department directorate of works has also begun a five-year programme to provide over 6,500 cells with access to sanitation in addition to its ongoing programme of maintenance, improvement and renovation.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently received representations, which I forwarded to him, from some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller)? They included one from a former prison chaplain who preaches at my local parish church and they concerned the serious problem of overcrowding in prisons. Does my hon. Friend recognise that such overcrowding is not tolerable in a civilised country such as we consider ours to be? The figures that he has given in his answer are most welcome. Will he continue these operations and consider alternatives to imprisonment for those convicted, and particularly for those on remand?
    Mr. Hogg: There are two important points here. Yes, there is overcrowding in the prison system, but it is very confined. There are about 50,000 people in the prison system, and 20,000 of them in the local and remand centres are overcrowded. The balance of 30,000 are not in any sense overcrowded in the circumstances in which they are living. The overcrowding of the 20,000 is a serious matter, but we have a whole range of policies designed to address that problem. Most specifically, we are building new places —25,000 between 1979 and the mid-1990s. I hope that we will have substantially eradicated the problem by the mid-1990s.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the substantial number of new places in prisons, may I ask him if he will do all that he can to expand prison education, especially for people on remand, some of whom spend three years on remand and are then not convicted of anything? Secondly, is he not concerned about the large number of people in prison dormitories? Is not that a threat to security?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend raises a number of matters. I agree that some people have been on remand for far too long and we are taking urgent measures to reduce the number. My hon. Friend is right about dormitories. Broadly speaking, they are not a secure way of keeping prisoners and we are in the process of eliminating them. We are seeking to improve the provision of education in the prisons, and I am glad to say that the fresh start procedures that we put in place have greatly enhanced the provision of education in the prison system.

    Crime Prevention (Norfolk)
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage crime prevention in Norfolk; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his attendance and on his question. The answer to his question is that crime reduction forms part of a strategy that applies to all of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased, crime concern was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate support and develop local crime prevention activity, and the largest-ever crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year. My right hon. Friend approved a further 24 police posts for the Norfolk force from 1 April. We give encouragement to the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels, and I am pleased to note that there are now 472 neighbourhood watch schemes in Norfolk, together with five crime prevention panels and three junior crime prevention panels.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police and all others in Norfolk who were involved in the very encouraging recent reduction in crime in that area and in Norwich? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a serious and continuing increase in violent crime? Will he do all that he can in discussions with the police and others in Norfolk to take further action to deal with that disturbing trend?
    Mr. Patten: I certainly congratulate the Norfolk constabulary on its sterling efforts to reduce crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has introduced a lot of very original ideas and thinking about how to reduce violent crime. Indeed, most of my hon. Friends recognise that all the original thinking about crime prevention is coming from these Benches. Nothing is coming from the Opposition Benches and in particular from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who did not ask a question the last time we had Home Office questions and has not got on his feet once during this session either.

    Crime (Humberside)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest available figures for the number of criminal offences recorded by police as having been committed in Humberside; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: In 1988 the Humberside police recorded 85,113 notifiable offences. This was a very welcome 4 per cent. fall from the previous year's figures.
    Mr. Cran: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only category of crime that increased on Humberside last year was violence related to the consumption of alcohol? That being the case, will his Department encourage a whole range of schemes to tackle the problem of under-age drinking, which is endemic in many parts of this country?
    Mr. Patten: We will certainly do all we possibly can and the whole Government, and I am sure the whole Conservative party, will support the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and his ministerial group on this issue.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to remind people of the importance of today's Euro-elections? Will she note the growing support by people in Northern Ireland for the Conservative party? Today they will have a chance to vote for Dr. Laurence Kennedy, our first-ever Conservative Euro-candidate in Ulster? Will she include him in her greetings to our candidates?
    The Prime Minister: I have already sent the message of greeting and support which my hon. Friend seeks to our Euro-candidates. I agree that it is a very important election and a very important day and I hope that people will turn out in strength and vote. I note what my hon. Friend says about matters in Northern Ireland. I know her strong views about parties there, and I note what she says.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister simply answer yes to the question, "Is the Chancellor going to retain his job after the forthcoming reshuffle?"
    The Prime Minister: I answer on precisely what the Chancellor said on Wednesday of last week in the economic debate. The Chancellor set out the Government's position clearly and in some detail. he said:
    "Our overriding"
    —I repeat "overriding"—
    "objective is to bring inflation back down."
    We shall not be diverted from that course.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is that "gladly, joyfully, generously, fully, fully, fully" a refusal to guarantee the future of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat what I said last week. If the right hon. Gentleman would like a little longer lecture I will read out the entire speech.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: While the Leader of the Opposition regards all this as a joke, is it not about time that we all began to take the sterling situation rather seriously and that the Leader of the Opposition ceased to try twice a week to talk sterling down?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition is normally trying to help the speculators and talks sterling down in the most unBritish way.
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Primarolo: Will the Prime Minister confirm that her policy of keeping interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary means that she will be prepared to tolerate a further increase in mortgage interest rates?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat what the Chancellor said in his most excellent speech in the economic debate giving his policy very fully. He set out the Government's position and said:
    "Our overriding"
    —I repeat "overriding"—
    "objective is to bring inflation back down."
    The Chancellor said:
    "the policies that have successfully brought inflation down in the past … will do so again."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 264.]
    We have had an extremely successful economic policy.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's main priority is to reduce inflation? Will she also condemn members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, for continually trying to talk the pound down?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I confirm once again that that is the Government's overriding priority, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the economic debate. We shall not be deflected from that course of action. I agree that the Opposition try to talk down the pound, which is a great tragedy.
    Mr. Shore: Apart from the obvious and damaging effect that high interest rates have on the competitiveness of British industry, is it not a fact that the main effect of high interest rates, far from reducing aggregate demand, is simply to redistribute demand away from hard-pressed first-time mortgagors and other borrowers to people who are savers and creditors? If that is so, is this not an extremely unfair and ineffective way to reduce demand and counter inflation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and short-term interest rates are the main instrument for dealing with it.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those both inside and outside Parliament who continually delight in rubbishing the achievements of this country fail to grasp the inherent strength of the British economy? Do we not now have a record level of new job creation in Europe, enjoy a record high standard of living, and have a record repayment of the debts piled up by the Labour party when it last had muddled control of our economy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a record high standard of living and a record high standard of social services.
    Mr. Tony Banks: And inflation.
    The Prime Minister: No, the Labour party has the record on inflation this century, with a rate of 27 per cent. As well as the record high standards of living and of social services, we have record repayment of debt, and record standards of investment in manufacturing industry and of business investment. I could go on with record after record of good things for the British people—an excellent record.
    Dr. Kim Howells: How do the Government intend to clean up our rivers and beaches if they refuse to give the National Rivers Authority the powers to prosecute the regional water companies after they have been privatised?
    The Prime Minister: Both our rivers and our beaches are being cleaned up, contrary to what happened during the time of the Labour Government. The directive from Europe came out in 1975, and it asked Governments to identify beaches that did not come up to standard. By 1979, the Labour Government had not identified one. It was left to us to identify them all. We have done so. Two thirds have already been dealt with and the other one third will soon be dealt with. As to rivers, 95 per cent. are classified, on European standards, as good or fair, which is the best record in the Community.

    European Commission
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the European Commission.
    The Prime Minister: I receive a number of such representations.
    Mr. Leigh: Whatever else divides the two major parties, is not one thing crystal clear, and comes out in representations concerning the European Community? It is that the overwhelming majority of the House insists that this House, representing the people as it does, must retain its untrammelled power over taxation. Were we to subscribe to a central European bank or a common currency, the House would lose the right, uniquely sustained over many centuries, democratically to control

    1121
    economic policy. Is that not why public opinion in this country is so different from that in other parts of the Community?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the ability to run monetary, economic and fiscal policy lies at the heart of what constitutes a sovereign state. I very much agree with him that the rights and powers of national Governments and Parliaments in these matters must be preserved. That is what this Parliament is for. We must resist the constant centralising tendency of the European Community.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House has made representations to the Government about the Commission's proposals for all-European television rules? is she aware also that at 3 am on Tuesday the House debated those rules, when it became clear that the decision whether a certain pornographic television channel which is transmitted in a member state, which I shall not name, becomes a legal transmission in Britain will be made by a majority vote? When the Prime Minister placed the Single European Act before the House, was she misled by others about its possible effects and potential? Was the right hon. Lady misled by the Commission or the Foreign Office, or is there some other explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is nothing misleading about the Single European Act. Greater majority voting in some spheres was clearly on the face of the Act, and he knows that. There is a question about interpretation with regard to one or two matters. Unanimous voting on certain matters was also clearly on the face of the Act. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have done more than any other to try to raise television quality standards, and hitherto we have had precious little help from the Opposition in so doing.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: On 27 June nearly 40 years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, in his matchless prose, made a declaration on behalf of the Conservative and Liberal parties that
    "national sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together."—[Official Report, 27 June 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2159.]
    When my right hon. Friend discusses these extremely important matters with her colleagues in the Community, will she consider not the unregenerate idealism of someone such as myself, who matters little, but the important idealism of the young people of Britain and elsewhere in Europe, who should be inspired by the idealism of the founding fathers, who have far to travel and who have not yet found their way home?
    The Prime Minister: Every time we sign a treaty of international agreement we are voluntarily engaging in a certain pooling of sovereignty. That has been so almost ever since Parliament began and the first treaty was signed. When we went into the Common Market we agreed to pool our sovereignty on such things as the common
    1122
    agricultural policy. Hitherto it was negotiated completely through Europe. We agreed to pool all our rights in trading with other nations and henceforth the Community conducted our trading negotiations through the Community and the Commission. There are other occasions where one pools one's sovereignty. To revert to what I was asked about earlier, taxation policy, economic policy and monetary policy go to the heart of the rights of this place, to the heart of representations by the people and to control of the Executive, and that is one of the reasons why the House exists.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What pathetic, miserable and whingeing excuses is the Prime Minister going to offer the country for her party's humiliation in the Euro polls today?
    The Prime Minister: I know that all our supporters will come out and vote strongly for our sort of Europe. I note that Opposition Members were not sufficiently confident in the results to come and question me in the House this afternoon. They had to run away. They felt that if they did not do so their supporters might not come out.

    Engagements
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: If any members of Tonge Moor Conservative club have not heeded Mr. George Handley's excellent advice to be sure to vote today, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remind them that the students in Peking are dying for democracy and that we should all go out and vote for the winning party, the party with more jobs, more exports, more productivity and more investment?
    The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This Conservative Government have created a strong Britain whose reputation rides high because we have put the economy in order. Voting Conservative today will help to create a strong Europe, and a strong Britain in a strong Europe, which pursues the same policies that have been so successful in this country.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that nothing so clearly reveals the dead trouble that she is in over sterling than the pathetically orchestrated series of questions about the Leader of the Opposition talking down sterling? Is she not aware that the persistent bickering between her and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her pathetic record on inflation and the balance of payments are driving down sterling? The Prime Minister's policies and her failure to deal with that situation in the markets in Europe are on trial.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has provided evidence of what we were complaining about earlier. The Opposition are out to write sterling down. Once again, he is at it, and his hon. Friends cannot leave it alone.

Rose Theatre
3.32 pm
Mr. Clive Soley(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Rose theatre site.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): My announcement on 15 May that Imry Merchant Developers had agreed to delay work on the site of the Rose theatre for up to one month, gave a valuable breathing space. Imry recently announced a new design at an extra cost to them of £10 million.
English Heritage has advised me that the new design will, if it receives planning permission from the London borough of Southwark, both protect the remains and allow their proper evaluation and display. Scheduling is not necessary at this stage.
I have decided, after consideration, to accept that advice. I would reconsider my decision if that became necessary. I hope that all parties will now work together to make a success of a thoroughly sensible deal.
Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is an overwhelming demand in this country and overseas that the site should be scheduled? Virtually everyone wants that. The way in which we are treating our heritage is becoming a major item on overseas news broadcasts. The site fully qualifies for scheduling under the National Heritage Act 1983, as the Secretary of State is aware. English Heritage confirms that the site should be scheduled. Building an office block on top of the site is an act of vandalism and incredibly short-sighted, even from a commercial point of view. If the site was properly developed and enhanced it would bring in far more money as a tourist attraction than half a dozen office blocks on the land. Does not the Secretary of State also realise that if he persists in this course and if he does not change his mind, because of the National Heritage Act 1983 and other legislation, he is likely to face a challenge in the courts sooner or later?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman clearly comes new to this subject. The demand, with which I have every sympathy, is that the site should be protected and conserved for future public inspection and remain for all time available for people to see. The demand is not for it to be scheduled. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that English Heritage has recommended scheduling. It has not done that. The criterion for scheduling is that I should feel that the site is threatened in some way. As a result of advice from English Heritage, I do not feel that. The scheme put forward by Imry Merchant is probably the best way of protecting and putting these very important remains on public display. Instead of always griping in the way that he does, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to the developers for their enormous contribution and co-operation.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: May I say how pleased I am that my right hon. Friend has come forward with a scheme that is practical and that brings together the parties —the developers, the London borough of Southwark, English Heritage, the museum of London and those of us who wish the site to be made available and accessible and
1124
preserved for posterity. If there is any further delay, the site may deteriorate. What is there now may be lost to future generations.
I recognise that the proposed solution will not satisfy everybody. There are those who feel that this is holy ground and that nothing should overshadow it. However, those who appreciate the necessity of recognising that we are in the 20th century but who nevertheless wish to preserve these elements of the past feel that this solution, which Imry has further considered and to which it is making a contribution of some £10 million, is one that we should support.
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should pay tribute to all concerned for the wonderful co-operation that they have shown in finding this solution. In the previous plan, 11 of the piles might have interfered with the foundations or other relics that were known to be there. The new design provides that the 11 piles will be moved to locations beyond the outer wall of the theatre. That shows remarkable co-operation. If this is holy ground—I would be too demure to express a view on such an important matter—holy ground needs to be protected. I believe that this is the best way to protect it. The wind, the rain, the frost and the sunlight will not do the ruins any good. They need to be protected.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that I appreciate the efforts that he, his Under-Secretary of State and Imry have made so far? However, the proposal is still a completely hit and miss approach to archaeology and to the rescue of our national heritage. Does he not accept that the logical way forward is to complete the excavation of the site and then to decide what building can be built on, near or around it that will not do any damage?
English Heritage has already agreed that the present proposals—to excavate in the area of the piles—may do damage and has said that as and when anything is found there may well be a request to the developers to move their piles yet again. There could be a series of requests and a series of altered designs. There have already been three. Would it not be far better to say, "Let's get the design right but only after the archaeology has been completed."
The Secretary of State concedes that this is a monument of national importance. English Heritage has admitted that it is a schedulable monument. Is it not crazy for the Secretary of State to say, "I may schedule it later and thereby give it the protection of the criminal law"? At the moment he is relying on a deal with the developer—and it could be a new developer if Imry were to sell tomorrow —which has no statutory force. At the time that the site needs most protection, which is now, the Secretary of State says that he does not intend to use his legal powers to intervene.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to the Under-Secretary of State who has, I believe, worked wonders in getting this deal through. The heat wave of the last month has created a risk of serious damage to the remains. It is now essential to provide protection for them. A membrane of Terram, followed by 40 cm of clean washed sand, is being placed on the remains for their best preservation. I do not believe that we should expose the remains to the risk of further damage from wind, weather and sunlight. That, therefore, is the correct

1125
procedure. If the hon. Gentleman would like to find the cost of deferring the building, I leave it to him individually to do so—
Mr. Hughes: People are willing to do so.
Mr. Ridley: I do not think that the people who own the site are willing to sell it, so the hon. Gentleman has to take both sides of the bargain into account. I do not believe that the monument is under threat, unless we fail to cover it up now. It is only if I believed that the monument was under threat that I should be justified in scheduling it. That is why I have left the position open. If it is under threat, I shall reconsider the position.
Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest as a member of the Theatres Trust, which sought to exert a moderating influence in arguments that at one stage were getting a bit frenzied. I am most grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks and for putting down a certain backstop. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but a reasonable compromise has been reached. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are in future to encourage other developers to take a responsible attitude there should be some recognition of the developer's role and that we should be seen to suport the work of English Heritage in difficult circumstances?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's for his remarks. The one-month delay that I intervened to secure, at some cost to public funds, was necessary in the unique circumstances of this important case. I am extremely happy that the result is that English Heritage, the developers, the voluntary sector and others co-operated to produce the correct solution. I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to Imry, whose costs were not inconsiderable. The outcome is a strong endorsement of the system of voluntary preservation and action that the Department has developed to preserve such remains. The whole House ought to be pleased at today's result, which strikes the right balance between the need for development and the need for preservation.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider four points. First, English Heritage said that the site is of schedulable quality. Secondly, will he look again at his responsibilities under the 1983 Act? Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's description of them in respect of vulnerability, that legislation defines three criteria and sub-criteria, and the Rose is generally considered to meet them all. Thirdly, archaeologists, the acting world and the public demand scheduling. The Secretary of State misrepresented that aspect. If he does not schedule the site, I suspect that an effort will be made to seek a judicial review or an appeal to judicial process. Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman is
1126
correct to say that Terram and sand cover the site but I believe that Imry intends concreting on top of that sand, if it has not already done so. If the Secretary of State does not urgently reconsider his decision not to reschedule, he will preserve a 10-storey office block but he will not preserve the Rose.
Mr. Ridley: I am not arguing whether the site is of schedulable quality. The question is whether it is under threat. I am certain that I am correct in thinking that it is not. The hon. Gentleman said that he had four points to make but he only asked in four different ways whether I will reschedule. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that a skin of concrete is to be laid over the washed sand. that is being done on the recommendation of English Heritage to preserve the monument. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to want to preserve the monument. He takes his case much further than is justified.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those right hon. and hon. Members who know the people who run English Heritage have great confidence in their judgment, and believe that their advice to date was wise and balanced and that the solution in prospect is sensible? My right hon. Friend is wise to retain an open mind. I ask him to take a personal interest along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who played an extremely constructive and helpful role during a rather difficult period. I ask him also to keep in touch with Southwark borough council. It is important that the remains are displayed in a proper and attractive manner and that the building erected over the site is worthy of its setting.
Mr. Ridley: There is no way that I could avoid taking a personal interest—not only because I want to do 30 but there is intense public and parliamentary interest. I took a considerable amount of interest in events as they unfolded. I believe that the Government's action in this matter has resulted in an extremely satisfactory position. I am not saying that that will always be the case, but so far the result is extremely good.
I certainly agree that Southwark borough council has an extremely important role to play as it will be necessary to accommodate the new solution with planning consent—I must not prejudice whether that would be right or wrong—and there are various other ways in which Southwark can play a major part in contributing to the success of this operation. I am optimistic that it will work out.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it will be possible to raise this matter in the debate which we are about to have on the arts. Some hon. Members now rising have already expressed their interest.

Business of the House
3.45 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House kindly tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Investment in Transport", afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Civil Liberties and a Bill of Rights". Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats.
Remaining stages of the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill.
TUESDAY 20 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 388).
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day, 1st half), until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Food Safety, Research and the Nation's Health".
Third Reading of the Local Government and Housing Bill.
Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
Motions relating to Scottish social security and community charges regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 22 JUNE—Until seven o'clock motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
Afterwards motion on the appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 23 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
[Debate on Wednesday 21 June
Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 361)
Community Charges (Information concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 476)
Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support), (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (5.1., 1989, No. 507).]
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Does he accept that it is intolerable that the new immigration regulations should be debated next Tuesday when they were made available in the House only yesterday? That has caused especial difficulty because of the European elections, and many hon. Members who are closely interested in the subject will not have an opportunity to study the new arrangements that are proposed before next Tuesday, the day of the debate. Will he consider postponing the debate to enable hon. Members on all sides of the House to study the detailed regulations and the Home Secretary's related announcements about DNA testing, and find an opportunity to debate them the following week?
1128
In view of fresh evidence today from the Policy Review Institute that the YTS is failing young people, will the Government provide time for an early debate on their policy for training our young people, so that some improvements can be made before 1992 and our young people do not fall even further behind the training offered by our European competitors?
Returning to two old themes, it is now 15 months since the Government received the Griffiths report on care in the community. When are we likely to hear their response, and when shall we have the oportunity to debate that very important matter? On the other matter, which I have been raising for a long time, what progress or otherwise have the Government made towards establishing a scheme to substitute student loans for student grants? That has been promised for a long time and the Secretary of State for Education and Science does not seem to be making very much progress, even with the Tory bankers with whom he is discussing the matter.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked me four questions about the business for next week. First, he complained about the time and the date that I have allocated for the debate on immigration issues. I agree that it is not the most convenient time in view of other matters, but it enables us to raise the subject. I believe that the time provided is adequate. In view of the hon. Gentleman's request, I shall see whether the matter can be pursued through the usual channels.
The Government fully recognise the importance of training and we are spending £3 billion on training provision now, as opposed to the £500 million spent in 1979. These matters were relevant to a Bill we were discussing a short time ago. I cannot promise a debate in the near future but I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return when an opportunity presents itself.
I am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman asked about the Griffiths report because the subjects he mentions are up to him. However, he has raised the subject several times before and I can assure him that we attach great importance to the Griffiths report and the Wagner report. Work is ongoing on our proposals, which we shall bring forward in the near future. Given the complexities of the matter, we must give full consideration to the subject so that we reach the right answers. I am sure that the time for a debate will be when we have announced our proposals.
On top-up loans for students, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science hopes to be able to report his conclusions on the administration of the scheme quite soon now. The right time for a debate will be after that.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As someone who for a great length of time has been concerned that measures should be introduced to cope with dog nuisance, may I say how delighted I am that the Government have given a commitment to introduce legislation. Can my right hon. Friend say when that legislation will be introduced? For example, will it be introduced in the other place during progress on the Local Government and Housing Bill? If so, will it also cover the new system for introducing byelaws swiftly and effectively.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the announcement made by my right hon.

1129
Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I cannot give him any further information now, but I shall bear in mind the points he makes.
Mr. James Wallace: It is known that the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the issue of strategic planning guidance for London and that an announcement is expected before the summer recess. Undoubtedly, the debate on transport on Monday will provide an opportunity to raise some of the issues about traffic congestion in the capital city. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the genuine concern of hon. Members who represent seats throughout the country, not just in London, about the strategic planning of our capital city? The need for integrated planning is important and it will be an opportunity for a debate before the Secretary of State makes the announcement.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that these matters raise important considerations and that some of my hon. Friends have been asking me to find time for a debate. I have promised that I will consider the matter but, at this stage in the parliamentary year, I cannot promise absolutely that there will he time for a debate.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept thanks for what he has just said about future development plans, which I understand was included in his previous answer? Will he tell us when he will find time to discuss the Green Papers on the future of the legal profession?
Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked before about providing time for a debate on those matters. We had a short debate rather late at night on the Lord Chancellor's salary order during which the subject was raised. I wish I could find time for further discussion but I have a feeling that we shall return to it before too long.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday and Wednesday week the Prime Minister and, no doubt others, will be going to the European Council Heads of Government meeting? Has he not received a letter from me in my capacity as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee recommending a debate prior to that meeting? Is he not aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee has heard evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England and will be issuing a report early next week? Surely a debate on this matter should come within the terms of the resolution of 30 October 1980. The fact that the Leader of the House has not announced a debate next week shows that the Government are not contemplating one. Will he reconsider the timetable and urgently schedule a debate of these important matters for next week, before the Prime Minister goes to Madrid?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest in these matters and is extremely knowledgeable. I will always reconsider any matter that he raises at Business Question Time. However, as he said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and I regret that as things stand now, I am unable to find time for a debate before the Madrid summit.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Notwithstanding what you, Mr. Speaker, have just said about today's debate on the arts and heritage, will my right hon. Friend
1130
arrange for a statement on the Rose theatre as soon as there is any change, next week if necessary? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the beautiful story by Oscar Wilde called "The Nightingale and the Rose" in which a nightingale thought it right to bleed its breast into the thorn of a rose which was fading, in order to save it. The rose bloomed beautifully but at dawn the nightingale fell dead. No one wishes to see anyone fall dead in this episode, but to save the Rose is worth a sacrifice.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was neither wilting nor likely to fall dead. He gave a good account of the Government's position on the matter. The best plan would be to have today's debate on the arts and heritage and to watch the developments, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. Kevin Barron: When will the Government find time to debate the British coal mining industry? Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the Department of Energy announced another 15,000 job losses in that industry this year and that that is on top of the loss of some 140,000 jobs in the industry in the past four and a half years? When the industry has improved productivity by 75 per cent. in the past three years it deserves more protection from the Government than it is getting.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asks when I can arrange a debate on the coal industry, and the answer to that is tomorrow, Sir.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend will recall that on Tuesday Parliament was lobbied by more than 100 workers in the electricity industry, representing the staff of Marchwood engineering laboratories in my constituency which undertakes work for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have been struck by the response from parliamentary colleagues who support the workers' case, represented on the Order Paper by early-day motion 983:
[That, recognising that 80 per cent. of the electricity research work carried out by Marchwood Engineering Laboratories relates to nuclear power generation, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to allocate Marchwood Engineering Laboratories to the National Power Co., rather than, as proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board, to Power Gen; but as a preferred alternative suggests that the principal Central Electricity Generating Board research facilities including Berkeley, Leatherhead and Marchwood should be combined to form an electricity research and development company which would bid for Rand D contracts from the power generating companies once the electricity industry was privatised.]
That calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision to allocate Marchwood engineering laboratories to Power Gen while 80 per cent. of its research and development work is nuclear-related. There has been a more sensible suggestion that the research and development capability of the CEGB should be incorporated into a single independent company to contract research and development work to the industry once privatised and that proposal is now gaining support. I am sorry to bounce this on my right hon. Friend, but will he consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

1131
Energy, who is at present considering the position, and suggest to him that the House should have an opportunity to debate that matter before he reaches a conclusion?
Mr. Wakeham: I have already consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, as I do on every early-day motion on the Order Paper as a matter of routine every week so that I come prepared. My right hon. Friend has received detailed representations on the matter from my hon. Friend and from representatives of the Marchwood employees. He is considering the matter most carefully and hopes to give a decision on the allocation of Marchwood shortly.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House please arrange an early debate on advertising standards? We have just been talking about the Rose theatre, but has the right hon. Gentleman seen the advertisements—I have photographs of them—in various streets in London put out by Flowers brewery which say:
"Not all flowers are pansies".
Is he aware that everyone knows that the slang word pansy refers to gay men and that that advertisement is causing a great deal of offence? I have received a number of complaints from my constituents. Those advertisements appear to have gone up in what one can only describe as the hard-drinking macho areas of London, where they are clearly calculated to try to stimulate homophobic attitudes among people. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to have a debate on that, will he make representations to his Cabinet colleague who is responsible for the Advertising Standards Authority to have those offensive advertisements taken down forthwith?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether that is necessarily an appropriate matter for me to deal with in business questions. Whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to make the speech that he might want to make in the debate next Wednesday will depend, to an extent, on you, Mr. Speaker, and on his ingenuity, but it is just possible.
1132
With regard to advertising standards and the drinks industry, I have talks with advertisers from time to time in my capacity as chairman of the Government committee on alcohol misuse. I find their representatives helpful and constructive in their approach to high and proper standards in advertising. I shall certainly see whether it is appropriate to discuss with them the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I complain to my right hon. Friend about his apparent policy of allowing late debates or, even worse, no debates on EC issues of great importance? Is he aware that the absence of a debate before the Madrid summit is regretted in all parts of the House? Is he also aware that to tackle as important an EC directive as the one on broadcasting, as we did this week at 2 o'clock in the morning, is a matter of regret not just to individual members, but is now, apparently, the subject of an official rebuke from the Select Committee on European Legislation? Since that directive has now to come back to the House as a result of a decision in Europe, will he please guarantee that we shall consider it at an appropriate hour?
Mr. Wakeham: I have an enormous amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend and I entirely agree that our arrangements for dealing with the scrutiny of European matters is not satisfactory. I have done my best to try to encourage further consideration as to how we might improve such scrutiny. I have given evidence to the Procedure Committee and I am glad that it is considering this matter. I have had meetings with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and I hope to have another meeting with him fairly soon. I have had discussions with right hon. and hon. Members from all sides of the House on how best we can deal with what is clearly a problem. If my hon. Friend would like to come to talk to me about how he thinks we could improve matters I should be delighted to see him.

Heads of Government Meeting, Madrid
4.1 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important national matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the agenda of the Heads of Government meeting, European Council, in Madrid on 27 and 28 June next".
You will have heard the exchanges, Mr. Speaker, immediately preceding this application and the courtesy of the Leader of the House who said that he is attempting to improve debates on matters of scrutiny. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that he has not provided the opportunity for such a debate.
The matter is specific in so far as some important items on the agenda are concerned, particularly the report of the Delors committee, commissioned at the last Heads of Government meeting, on full economic and monetary union within the European Community. I need not emphasise the importance and significance of that report and its recommendations for the future of the nation and its potential consequences for virtually all our future economic, political and social life.
Two Select Committees of this House will have reports available early next week and the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. The Select Committee on European Legislation has reported that the Delors report should be debated within the terms of the resolution of the House on 30 October 1980, which appears to have been discounted or overlooked in the statement that we have just heard from the Lord President in reply to my question.
If the House is to have any influence on those of Her Majesty's Ministers who will be attending this important meeting, where decisions of principle could be taken, it is essential that the matter be debated in time—I refer to the Standing Orders. I submit, therefore, that bearing in mind the ancient privileges of this House, particularly those concerning consultation prior to decisions, and prior to legislation, you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the rights and liberties of the House and thus of all the subjects, should place the application before the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the forthcoming meeting of the Heads of Government in the European Council in Madrid on 27 and 28 June next."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about his matter. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today—
Mr. Spearing: Or for Monday, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On Monday.
I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House, but I hope that he will find other methods of raising it.

Arts and Heritage
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
4.4 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I welcome the opportunity to open this debate on the arts and heritage. I intend to concentrate on the broad themes of the Government's arts policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) will answer the debate and dwell in more detail on the heritage.
This House has debated the arts every year since I became Minister for the Arts in 1985. This is the third year running that we have debated the subject in Government time.
There are many heartening signs that an increasing number of people are concerned about issues that will affect the quality of life, not only of themselves but their children and grandchildren. The public interest is becoming all-embracing. The natural desire for a pollution-free environment is matched by a growing interest in our architecture—and in the importance of attractive surroundings. There is an increasing ability to turn away from the mundane aspects of daily life to enjoy a range of recreation. The arts fit within this pattern. The criteria are quite clear: that more people want to enjoy leisure and to educate themselves through museums, galleries, theatres, concerts, opera and jazz or by trying out their own creative talents, through crafts, photography or painting. For deep down we know, as Dostoevsky echoed,
"Man does not live by bread alone".
We need something deeper to turn to.
As we witness the last lashings of the tail of the dying crocodile of Communism in so many parts of the world, the challenge to genuine democracies lies in demonstrating that we offer real political and economic freedom and the best means of improving our quality of life.
We cannot achieve this unless the culture of wealth creation is deeply embedded in our life. This has become the case under this Government. The search for a higher standard of wealth must be tireless, but now is the time to focus our attention upon how to make the best use of this new climate for the quality of our lives. As we look forward to the turn of the century, we must open up even further the opportunity for individuals to extend their horizons and to enrich their daily lives. We have every reason to be proud of our artistic achievements in this country.
It is an important Government job to create the climate whereby we can achieve the highest standards of excellence and creativity. We want to ensure that all those who wish to do so have the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of this or to participate and use their own talents. We best achieve this in a democratic society where the freedom of artistic expression is a central principle. We will best inspire genius and talent by the greatest possible delegation of decision-making from the centre, by encouraging art in our schools and by encouraging financial support from a variety of sources.
The most potent challenge that we face today is the need to ensure that the best our our arts is accessible to all those who have the potential to enjoy it. That is a central part of my strategy and I shall now take a few moments to describe how I am attempting to achieve it.

1135
It is against that background that I reaffirm the importance I attach to a policy of maximum arm's length so that it is not the Minister and his officials in Whitehall who make the day-to-day decisions about artistic standards and management. The arm's-length principle has been totally supported by successive Governments of both parties since the war. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will take the opportunity of this debate to reaffirm his party's support for that principle.
It is important to strengthen and preserve artistic freedom. The arm's-length policy, working for example through the Arts Council and other bodies, is a way to achieve this. I know that the council shares my concern to foster the highest standards of artistic excellence and access to the arts by maintaining and developing centres of excellence throughout the country.
In the context of the arm's-length principle, I am concerned to strengthen the accountability of the arts organisations for the taxpayers' money that they receive and I want to see whether the funding structure which we have, through the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, can be improved, so that they are as coherent and efficient as possible. I have therefore commissioned a review, which is now being conducted by Mr. Richard Wilding—formerly permanent head of the Office of Arts and Libraries—who will report to me by 31 October this year. I regard the review as extremely important.
Let me take this opportunity to tell the House about some of the measures that I am taking, along with the arts world, to promote both excellence and access.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: My right hon. Friend has referred to access to the past and to the need to develop centres of excellence. Our right hon. Friend's decision about the Rose site is particularly welcome, because access to the past will be provided.
Those who are interested—particularly members of the acting profession, who have shown a commendable concern about the need for access to the past—should be encouraged now to direct their attention to a nearby potential centre of excellence. I refer to the site of the Globe theatre, literally yards from the Rose site. The interests of those people, and of my right hon. Friend, in "living stones" can thus provide a forum for excellence in the future rather than access to the past.
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has made an important point, not only about the Rose theatre but about the plans for the Globe, which I believe will lead to considerable public support and interest. I am glad to note the progress that has been made in raising funds, and I hope that the construction of the proposed Globe theatre will start soon. I think that it has every prospect of becoming a great centre of excellence, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it.
I had begun to focus on the question of excellence, and that of accessibility to it. Let me illustrate that further. The national museums and galleries are in the forefront. For example, the Tate gallery opened the new "Tate in Liverpool" in 1988, and has already attracted nearly half a million visitors in its first six months. The National Portrait Gallery has put an important part of its reserve collection on display in no fewer than four country houses
1136
—in Somerset, Yorkshire, Lancashire and North Wales. The British Film Institute's new museum of the moving image has had more than 250,000 visitors since it opened in September 1988, well above the number expected. The Victoria and Albert museum has announced plans to open an outstation in Bradford to house part of its great Indian collection. There are other examples: for instance the imperial war museum and the science museum also have plans.
We have extended the principle to loans and exhibitions, to which considerable importance is attached, not only by me but by many other hon. Members, as they house our greatest objects of art and our greatest collections. The British museum, for example, consistently lends more objects than any other institution in the world —2,500 in 1987. In 1987–88 the Tate gallery, which houses more contemporary works, lent 556, 303 within the United Kingdom and the rest abroad.
The Government help the process through their indemnity scheme. In the last financial year, objects valued at £1 billion were indemnified for exhibition. In April 1988 I established the travelling exhibition unit at the Museums and Galleries Commission, and it promoted 10 projects during its first year. I hope that as it expands it will facilitate many other exhibitions around the country.
I also attach great importance to touring. It was in the interests of excellence and access that I gave the Arts Council extra money for its budget, to be earmarked for increased touring. It allocated £1·5 million for the purpose in 1988–89, financing more than 60 weeks of extra touring, including 38 for drama.
By contrast, I was glad, too, to be able to make a contribution of £150,000 to the fund set up by the Carnegie Trust to help make arts venues more accessible to disabled people.
In areas such as inner cities, and in the rural arts, a great deal is being done to open up the prospects of more access to the arts to people who live in those areas. It would be wrong not to mention in particular the city of Glasgow, which has done outstanding work in promoting its arts, using them to bring great benefits to the city and the country. I was glad to be able to make a contribution of £500,000 towards the city's preparations for its role as European city of culture in 1990.
There are other areas as well. For example, in broadcasting I welcome the fact that the Arts Council is doing work on improving access to the arts through broadcasting, and it is developing some proposals in that context.
I regard investment in education as almost the biggest for the longer term. The Education Reform Act ensures a central place for the arts and heritage in the core curriculum and the GCSE examinations. That is why the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I announced in May a joint initiative to emphasise the importance of the arts in the school curriculum.
The public today expect art to be an integral part of the environment In response to that, many local authorities and private companies are initiating imaginative public arts projects. Birmingham leads the way in that, and the British library has some exciting schemes for its new building.
In that connection, there is no finer example of the Government's commitment to these joint objectives of excellence and access than the new British library. For the first time, we are giving the library a purpose-built home,

1137
bringing together under one roof the majority of its London-based collections in a properly controlled, pollution-free environment. The whole building is due to be completed and fully in use by 1996. Costing well over £400 million in cash terms, it is the Government's largest single civil project. It will be one of Britain's greatest cultural achievements and a significant addition to our heritage.
The project shows the importance we attach to the work of scholarship and my concern to marry the best work of our scholars to public access and enjoyment. In this context, I am making a point of visiting national museums and galleries to meet the staff. I have recently been to the V and A and to the national maritime museum, and I have several more visits of that kind planned. I have been impressed by the dedication and hard work that I have seen.
In connection with the heritage, I appreciate that there are particular problems and pressures posed by the constant and high price rises in the art market. I am reviewing some of the mechanisms in this sphere to see where I can help, and I will mention a few.
Recently there was considerable criticism that the price of Turner's "Seascape, Folkestone" was not published when I announced my recommendation to defer a decision on the export licence application. The reason for the withholding of the Turner price was the option given to owners not to disclose. I shared the concern that was expressed and I am rectifying this anomaly. From now on, if an object is placed under deferral, following consideration by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, the price will be published. Owners will be told this in the letter they receive from the Department of Trade and Industry informing them of an objection to export. I hope that this change will help public collections in their fund-raising, especially where they launch a public appeal.
Acknowledging, as I do, this increase in prices, I have decided to revise the limits for export licences very soon. This is in accordance with the recommendations put to me by the export reviewing committee. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are also well aware of the problems posed by the withdrawal of what is known as the indefinite stop procedure. We are giving urgent attention to finding a solution to that problem.
To give priority to the housing and conservation of existing collections, as the museums and galleries have asked us to do, the Government have been obliged to keep purchase grants at a constant cash level since 1985–86. I am well aware of the problems that this poses and I have already announced that I am considering how to deal with them.
I also conducted a consultation exercise last year on what discretionary powers, if any, museums and galleries should have to dispose of items from their collections. Bearing in mind the responses that I have received, my aim will be to ensure that any relevant powers are, as far as possible, tailor-made to meet the specific requirements of each institution. I hope that it is helpful to the House for me to reaffirm that principle. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West will cover other important heritage themes, and the House has already had a brief chance today to discuss the latest developments on the Rose theatre.
I shall now deal with the matter of funding. In order to provide excellence for as many people as possible, the arts
1138
need financial support, and the more sources that they have to draw on the healthier and freer they will be. However, I fully accept that, for the foreseeable future, the taxpayer's role is also important. Let me put Government art funding in perspective. Some people like to suggest that 10, 20, or 30 years ago, and especially 20 years ago, saw the great golden age of the arts. It is important to put that in perspective.
It is interesting to note that, in real terms, the Arts Council receives three times as much from the Government today as it did in the late 1960s. Since its creation by the Goverment in 1980 the national heritage memorial fund has received over £105 million from the taxpayer. The budgets of our national museums and galleries are also at record levels and central Government spending on them has risen by 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. Funding for their building programmes has increased by about 50 per cent. in real terms over the same period.
Let us make no mistake about the achievement of the Government. There has been an overall increase in arts funding of 39 per cent., in real terms, including abolition money, since 1979, and that is a strong achievement. I am especially pleased that I was able to announce in November 1987 a new departure in arts funding in which firm figures were set for the next three years. The object of that is to give arts bodies a firm basis on which to plan their future activities and their various sources of funding, and to encourage greater self-reliance. We are already seeing its results in some excellent forward thinking—for example, in the Arts Council's three-year business plan and in the corporate plans of the museums and galleries.
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister will be aware that I have often congratulated him on the achievement of finding a three-year funding formula of which the whole art world approves and has been seeking for a long time. Does he accept that the second and third years of the formula are at rates well below the rate of inflation, and that any advantages arising from the security of planning are more than offset by the fact that in those two years all arts clients will have a cut in real terms?
Mr. Luce: I shall shortly deal with inflation and respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. I again acknowledge that I am fully aware of the pressures and problems faced by the arts. As the hon. Gentleman has said, first among these is the effect of inflation. The Government's absolute priority is and must be the conquest of inflation. We must continue the battle against it, for the arts as well as for all other areas of activity. We are thinking, as we should in the arts world, of three-year funding in many areas, and the amount of money that we make available must be seen in the context of the three-year total. For the first year, I increased the Arts Council's funding by 10 per cent. It is true that the amount was lower in the second and third years.
Creative funding partnerships are seen throughout the arts, and business sponsorship is a marvellous success story. It has been considerably helped by the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme administered for me by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. Since its introduction in 1984, it has produced almost £25 million of new money—£2·40 from the private sector for every £1 from the taxpayer.

1139
The first-class management of arts bodies is now being recognised and awarded through the incentive funding scheme. I gave the Arts Council money for that in the 1987 settlement—£12·5 million over three years—and 48 awards have already been made to organisations throughout the country. The Arts Council expects the scheme to produce £3 of private sector money for every £1 from the taxpayer.
I am extending this incentive approach into all areas of my reponsibility. There is a new incentive scheme for the conservation of manuscripts, and the public library incentive scheme is in its second year.
The contribution of local authorities to arts funding is invaluable. To take just one example, Birmingham city council gives an annual grant of just under £800,000 to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, showing its total commitment to this outstanding centre of excellence.
The arts are also immeasurably enriched by many outstanding examples of private generosity. We all know of the Sainsbury family contribution for the new wing at the national gallery. We should refer to the Clore Foundation, which contributed no less than £6 million to the cost of the new gallery for the Turner collection at the Tate, and to the remarkable contribution of Mr. John Paul Getty 11, who plans to give £50 million as an endowment fund for the national gallery. He is also a leading private donor to funding for the British Film Institute's highly successful museum of the moving image, which was built for £11 million without a penny from the Government.
A private donation is enabling the Victoria and Albert museum to open a new Chinese gallery and the museum has just received generous donations from the Hinduja foundation and from Jenson and Nicholson for its new gallery of Indian art. It should also be mentioned that, in the past five years the British museum has raised nearly £12 million of private money for building and gallery work. The library and services of the British Theatre Association, which were threatened with closure earlier this year, were saved through the outstanding generosity of Mr. Robert Holmes à Court.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: This is a genuine question. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what efforts are being made to get local business sponsorship and support, because much of what he has said has been in relation to national sponsorship? We no longer have the great shipping magnates in Liverpool and other such cities, where we depended very much on their support. Obviously, we cannot raise all the money at local level through local authorities. This is an important matter and I would like to know how much thought has been given to it and what has been done in that direction.
Mr. Luce: I fully acknowledge the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. He puts his finger on the problem, which I think is gradually being solved through the business sponsorship incentive scheme. The evidence is that the scheme is successful as a national scheme, not just a London scheme. I have been just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to encourage sponsorship in Merseyside and Scotland, for example. There is increasing evidence that the scheme is being taken up, sometimes on a modest basis,
1140
but that does not matter; once the thing starts, other businesses come in and I believe that the incentive scheme has done a great deal to encourage that.
In this context, I am delighted to tell the House about another noticeable development. The Arts Council has decided to establish an endowment fund to support new and experimental work. It has been launched with a £1·1 million gift to the council from an anonymous legacy. The council is now working on plans to expand the size of the fund to a target of £20 million.
Indeed, great effort from many sources goes into our arts and heritage: into their creation, production and preservation and into funding, supporting and enjoying them.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: It seems appropriate here to raise the question of value added tax on new works of art. Whereas VAT is designed to encourage exports of everything else, it also encourages exports of works of art. If they are sold abroad, they are sold at a discount of 15 per cent. or at the price for which the artist is asking rather than being sold in this country, presumably under the scheme that my right hon. Friend has just announced, with a bare 15 per cent. VAT addition. Would he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if that cannot be changed?
Mr. Luce: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and of course I will raise the point with the Chancellor. There is now a great deal of discussion within the Community of the implications of 1992 for the art trade. But I will, of course, bear the point in mind and raise it with my right hon. Friend.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to blow the trumpet for our marvellous arts organisations and their leadership.
The test of all this is our ability to produce art of lasting quality. As Henry Austin Dobson said:
"All passes; art alone, enduring, stays to us."
There is no reason why we should not be producing the same talent today as we have in previous generations. Just as Shakespeare, Bacon, Gainsborough, Turner, T. S. Eliot, Elgar, Kipling and Byron have endured, so I believe that there are artists of genius today who will be remembered and enjoyed in centuries to come.
Our artistic quality is a true test of the level of our civilisation. Any Arts Minister has the duty to ensure that the outlet for genius and creativity is as strong as ever in the last part of this century. That is the duty which I try to fulfil.
4.29 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: Any congratulations that are due to the Government for this debate on the arts are dwarfed by the timing of the debate. We had an arts debate five years ago on European election day and, by an extraordinary coincidence, once again, on a European election day when hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to be helping in European constituencies, we have another arts debate.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Has the hon. Gentleman thought of that word "dwarfed" in relation to a comparison between the different numbers on the two sides of the House? Despite the difficulties of being present, there are three times as many on Conservative Benches as there are on Opposition Benches.
Mr. Michael Foot: It is the quality that is important.
Mr. Fisher: As my right hon. Friend has said, by the end of the debate, we shall be able to judge the quality of the contributions. It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman made that point. There is a simple answer. Tory Members know that they will be thrashed in the European elections, so there is no point in them being in the constituencies. They are better cowering here than facing the electorate. We know that we shall have a triumph in the polls today and my right hon. and hon. Friends are out celebrating in advance the enormous vote of confidence that the electorate are giving us. The difference in enthusiasm in getting out and facing the electorate is hardly surprising. It is interesting that Tory Members are here rather than doing that.
It is not good enough to have the debate on this day. I do not blame the Minister for this. It is the usual channels, or the Chief Whip, or the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] An hon. Member who is not supposed to speak has said that I am not sure who is to blame and that is probably true. The timing of the debate reflects the interest in art and culture among senior members of the Cabinet. In their view, these are unimportant issues that can be debated on what are, in parliamentary terms, non-days. Our contention is that the arts and heritage are vital to the democratic and cultural life, to community identity and cohesion, to employment and the economy. I wish that the Government—I exclude the Minister from this—placed the same importance on the arts and culture as we do. If they did, we would be having this debate in prime time.
I welcome the debate and the chance to respond to the Minister's interesting speech. It gives us an opportunity both to examine the cultural balance sheet in the arts and heritage after 10 years of the Government and to look at it in the light of this European election day and compare our policies and practice with those of our European partners. Statistics are difficult to compare because they are arranged in different definitions in different countries and with different regional and central Government balances. I welcome the fact that the Office of Arts and Libraries is funding a Policy Studies Institute study to look at those comparative statistics. I hope that it will be finished soon and that we can see the published results.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I suspect that those results will show that other European countries spend a great deal more on their arts and heritage than we do. The figures available from the Arts Council and others show that France and West Germany spend 0·8 per cent. of total central Government expenditure on the arts when we spend about 0·25 per cent. We spend less than half the level of other countries. On a per capita basis, we spend between £7 and £9 a head—there are different figures in different parts of the United Kingdom—Germany spends about £15 to £16, France about £17 and Sweden about £24. That is an interesting reflection on the relative importance that other countries give to the arts. I welcome the evidence that the Minister is attempting to ascertain the facts. I hope that he will use that material well in getting more money from the Treasury. Currently we are limping behind our European counterparts.
If central Government are not yet responding, local authorities are. The authorities recognise that there is a real demand from audience and artists in the local
1142
community and they have been increasing their expenditure enormously, and probably at a faster rate than any other set of local authorities in the European Community. I hope that the Government will recognise that local message. The Minister's remarks today about Glasgow and other local communities suggest that he may be aware of it and recognises it. It seems, unfortunately, that the local message is something to which the Government are fairly deaf. I hope that they will listen more attentively.
Let us consider the 10-year balance sheet that sets out the Government's record. The Minister has set out some of the criteria that he thinks we should be examining. I have paid tribute already to the fact that he secured three-year funding. He has made attempts with the Arts Council to devolve more to the regions. I welcome, for example, the move of Sadler's Wells to Birmingham, Tate in the north and other initiatives, on which I congratulate the Minister. However, the Government's record overall is a poor one. I welcome the things that are happening but the Government's response to initiatives has been poor.
Over the past 10 years we have done well in museum terms. We have seen the expansion of industrial museums, but the Government's response has been to allow a real crisis to develop in repairs to and maintenance of our national museums. There has been an exciting increase in the interest of audiences in dance. The Government commissioned, through the Arts Council, the Devlin report, which does not take the French Government's view that we should invest to reflect the increased interest of audiences in dance. The premise of the Devlin report was that there should be no more funding. That is why it came to the conclusion that the Northern Ballet Theatre should be axed. We welcome the fact that it has a two-year breathing space. It is unfortunate that the Government are not responding to exciting developments.
There is a range of opera touring companies, including Opera North and Kent Opera. Unfortunately, there are severe question marks over Kent Opera's future. Given the good work that it is doing, it would be a tragedy if it were to be axed.
In local authorities, whatever the political persuasion, we are seeing an increase in the number of arts officers and the development of arts policy. There is an increase in expenditure in both Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities. This is apparent in shire counties and metropolitan areas. It is taking place in spite of the fact that the Government have taken £28 billion from local authorities through the rate support grant over the past 10 years. The RSG has been cut from 61 per cent. of funding to 45 per cent. The enormously exciting increase in expenditure on the arts by local authorities and local communities has not been taken up by the Government. On the contrary, they have done their best to inhibit it. The Government's role has been shortsighted. At a time of unprecedented interest by audiences and extremely high quality of work by artists and writers throughout the country, the Government's record is a miserable one of neglect, underfunding and missed opportunities.
The Government are out of touch and out of sympathy with what is going on in the arts around the country. That is extremely sad.
Both libraries and museums should be enjoying a golden age. I pay tribute to the Government's GCSE syllabus, which put a terrific and new emphasis on children working from primary sources. The opportunities for

1143
working in libraries and in museums with primary sources is enormous and should mean an expansion of audiences and activities in libraries and museums. We find, however, that, after 10 years of care for libraries by the present Government, fewer public libraries are open. Those that are open are open for fewer hours, and the spending on book funds has fallen.
Everyone agrees that information is the key element in the development of our economy. Our public libraries are the main source of important industrial and community information on patents, standards and legal and tariff barriers. Ten years ago there were 22,000 requests for information at Birmingham central library. Last year, there were 579,000 requests. That is a 163 per cent. increase, showing an explosion of interest and involvement in the public libraries' information services. However, the Government have been cutting the funding of public libraries.
As a result of the GCSE, there is a need for more library facilities as most schools are struggling to keep up their book funds. Very few schools have professional chartered librarians. My four children have now been through the state system and none of them attended a high school or primary school which had a chartered librarian. In school, they had virtually no experience of professional libraries. That is a wasted opportunity and a tragedy.
There has been a general collapse in national and regional libraries. Over the past year there have been reports from the Museums and Galleries Commission, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee which all tell the Minister the same story. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is hearing evidence from the directors of our major national museums. Mr. Neil MacGregor recently explained to that Select Committee the problems facing his gallery.
When will the Government recognise the crisis? When will they recognise that the Tate gallery needs £27 million for repairs and maintenance of basics like wiring, safety procedures and security? The Victoria and Albert museum has a £50 million backlog of repairs and maintenance and anticipates that it will need £120 million over the next five years. The National Maritime museum needs £19 million for repairs and maintenance. How much more evidence must be put in front of the Minister before he does something about the fabric of our great national museums?
Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman takes no notice when we announce positive decisions. He is either deaf or does not want to listen. Does he acknowledge that, as a result of representations about the structure of our important national institutions, I have decided to shift resources to building and maintenance to the tune of an extra 55 per cent. over a four-year period in acknowledgment of that very problem? It is very difficult to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he does not acknowledge that the Government are trying to do something about it.
Mr. Fisher: Of course we acknowledge that the Government are trying to do something. However, the Minister must understand that the initiative which he has announced, in comparison to the evidence before him, is completely inadequate. Even after the Minister's initiative, the museums are going backwards. He should ask himself
1144
why those major museums, 15 months after they were given the opportunity to take over the running of their properties from the Property Services Agency, are still reluctant to take on that responsibility. Instead of being given an opportunity by the Government, they know that they are being handed a load of debt and problems.
In welcoming any small moves which the Minister has made, he must understand that he has made an inadequate response to what is becoming a national scandal about the state of the fabric of our national museums. That point is highlighted particularly by the problems facing the Victoria and Albert museum over the past few months, but the problems are not confined to that museum.
The problems in libraries and museums have been increasing over the past few years. However, this year, the tenth year of the Prime Minister's reign, has been the worst. The Minister has spent the whole year fire-fighting problems which all stem from the problems that have developed over the past 10 years. He should not have had to do that.
For example, the British Theatre Association library was saved by a benefactor, no thanks to the Minister or the Government. We cannot rely on people like Mr. Holmes a Court to come along and bale out the Government, who have a public and national responsibility for a unique archive and resource.
Mr. John Bowis: I have been looking at the figures because the hon. Gentleman painted an abysmal picture of libraries. I cannot reconcile what he said with the facts. The number of service points for libraries has increased from 14,000 to 18,000. There has been no fall in the number of books purchased and 11 million books are purchased every year. Library book stocks have increased from 110 million to 116 million and library staffing is at its highest level for 10 years.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should try to understand the figures that he has quoted or with which the Office of Arts and Libraries has provided him. He is not quoting the number of public libraries; he is quoting public book stocks in hospitals and old people's homes. There are not 14,000 or 20,000 public libraries in this country. There are actually—
Mr. Bowis: No, service points.
Mr. Fisher: Service points are not the important thing. The important thing is that there are 4,000 public libraries in this country. There has been a drop of 200 libraries. No one disputes that, with an aging population, there are more service points in old people's homes and hospitals. However, the number of libraries open to the public has fallen. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I am sure looks at these matters fairly, should recognise that.
This year there was a missed opportunity with the British Theatre Association library. A similar opportunity was missed with the Northern Ballet Theatre. The Theatre Upstairs at the Royal Court and the Studio Theatre at the Theatre Royal in Bristol—the Bristol Old Vic—have had to close. Children's theatres such as the Polka and the Unicorn are facing real problems as a result of new regulations which inhibit children and prevent them leaving schools in organised parties to visit theatre performances.

1145
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will consider heritage later. The problems at Huggin Hill have matched those of the Rose theatre. We will also have problems very soon about the archaeological remains at the King's Cross site. We shall have similar problems along the route of the Channel tunnel. The problems are stacking up.
This tenth year of Thatcherism has been a very bad year for the Government quite apart from the missed opportunities at Covent Garden, King's Cross, in Docklands and on the South Bank where there are major international opportunities for the Government to make a formidable statement about how much we care about our culture. However, the Government are standing idly by and letting the private sector get on with it.
The Minister made an interesting speech this afternoon. I have often berated him about his lack of policy and vision. I recognise that this afternoon he attempted to address those problems. Many of his aspirations on more opportunities for all, on audience participation, on pride in arts achievements in this country, on arts in schools, devolution, access and excellence were all fine aspirations and fine words which hon. Members on both sides of the House would share and applaud in full.
The Minister asked me to respond in particular to his remarks about the arm's-length principle and the future of the Arts Council. This Government and other Governments have considered the arm's-length principle to involve what is at the end of the arm. The fact that the arm is extended does not mean to say that the Government do not control, at the end of the arm, the Arts Council through Government funding limits. That has become true over the past few years when the arts world has considered that the Arts Council is moving closer to the Government.
We believe that a truly independent Arts Council is one that can speak for the arts world to the Government instead of to the arts world on behalf of the Government as, on occasion, the Arts Council appears to have done over the past few years. There are exceptions to that. It took an honourable, principled and brave stand on clause 28 last year and told the Government that they were wrong. However, too often companies in the arts world feel that the .Arts Council must, because of its funding relationship with the Government, speak too much on behalf of the Government instead of to the Government. We would seek to reduce the patronage of the Arts Council to have an independent Arts Council which spoke for, and on behalf of, the arts world. We shall submit evidence to Mr. Wilding's inquiry which we welcome. No doubt we will debate those matters at greater length in future.
I welcome the Minister's announcement about the innovation endowment fund. The need for innovation is great. However, I doubt whether that, of itself, is an adequate or sufficient solution and whether money solely dispensed by the Arts Council from the centre—from London, from the top—is the best way to stimulate innovation in all forms of arts and culture. Innovation is best developed at regional and local level. However, I welcome the initiative, as far as it goes.
Innovation is not simply a question of providing £1 million and thinking that that will suffice. Companies ought to be sufficiently well funded to feel that they have the right to fail. Recently the National Theatre bravely staged a play called "Ghetto". A lot of money was spent on it. It was unlikely to be a box office success. If the reviews had been had and if audiences had not turned up,
1146
the whole season at the National Theatre would have been put at risk. Theatre companies should not have to risk a whole season in that way. The right to fail and to experiment must be built into their budgets.
The very brave work that Annie Castledine has been doing at the Derby Playhouse does not easily attract audiences, but audiences are being built up for it. The critical appreciation is enormous. Local audiences are responding, so work of that sort needs to be backed. A theatre that has no room for the sort of work that Annie Castledine is doing at Derby is not a theatre which is in good shape.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way to guarantee box office success is to reduce income tax? It has been reduced from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent. People now have some money to spend on the arts.
Mr. Fisher: The Government are always telling us that people now have very much more money in their pockets, but spending on the arts by audiences is not necessarily the answer to the problem. Most of the companies that I am talking about, which play to large audiences, cannot increase their box office revenue. The Royal Opera House is playing to 96 to 97 per cent. capacity audiences.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Of course it plays to 96 per cent. capacity audiences. That is because 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the seat price is paid for by the rest of us.
Mr. Fisher: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want there to be success at the box office, and 96 per cent. or 97 per cent. at the box office is a good indication of how popular the Royal Opera House and English National Opera programmes are. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome popular success, but it seems that he is never satisfied.
The real reason for these problems is that the Government are hoist on their policy of relying on the private sector and market forces. I remind the Minister yet again about his statement to the conference at Newcastle of the Council of Regional Arts Associations. I hope that he will take this opportunity to say that he has changed his mind and that that statement is no longer Government policy. He said:
"The objective of this Government is to reduce the role of the state."
Is that still the Government's objective? If so, I suspect that he has had great success, because most companies reckon that they are getting less state support. However, that is not in the interests of innovation or quality, or of widening access to the arts, even though that is his ambition.
The Minister went on to say:
"Too many in the arts world have yet to be weaned away from the welfare state mentality."
I do not believe that they ever had such a mentality. People in the arts world have always fought for audiences. They are very keen to increase their audiences. Performing artistes want as many people as possible to see their work. I think that they found that remark deeply offensive and deeply insulting.
Is it still the Government's view that a welfare state mentality still exists in the arts? I hope that the Minister will rise to his feet and say that that is not so—that he recognises that the arts are very good at marketing

1147
themselves and selling themselves to audiences. The Minister seems to be reluctant to take the opportunity I have offered to him to take back a remark that does him no credit. I regret that he does not intend to do so. The arts world will regret it, too, and note the reality of the Government's attitude, beneath all their fine words.
As for funding, the Minister said that three times as much money is devoted now to the arts as in the 1960s. Of course it is, but the demand is much greater and there are many more Arts Council and regional arts association clients. The expansion of the arts has been enormous. However, can the Minister name one arts client who is getting more money now and who feels that the opportunities are greater as a result of central Government policy and funding? Can he name a single company—the Royal Shakespeare theatre or the National theatre, perhaps—that is prepared to go on record and say that it is better off now than it was before, thanks to the Government; that it is able to mount more programmes; that it is able to do more interesting and innovative work and that it is able to employ better designers and expand its activities?
Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman seems to be coming round to making the case for a centralised arts policy. He has not yet answered the question that my right hon. Friend put to him earlier: whether the Labour party is still committed to an arm's-length policy. Does he still believe in the policy, advocated by his predecessor, of a centralised system, on the basis that he who pays the piper calls the tune? That appears to be the policy that the Labour party advocates. It would pay for the arts and determine what is done by the arts.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should know what Labour policy is because he has been taking part in these debates for a long time. Labour party policy is that there should be an expansion of the arts at local authority level, in response to what local communities, local audiences and local artists want. There should be real devolution. The arts should be encouraged at local authority level by making the arts, for the first time ever, a statutory responsibility of local authorities. The arts are just as important as housing, social services or libraries. That is the way to expand the arts. That is a genuine devolution. It is not centralisation. However, the Government want to control the arts through the Arts Council. They want to control the arts from the centre.
Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself now. He said earlier that companies should have the right to put on whatever productions they want, that they should have the right to fail and that we should subsidise them, even if nobody wants to see their productions. Now he is saying that he wants the arts to be funded at local level so that people can be given what they want. If people want something, they will go and see it. If they do not want it, they will not go and see it. Which way does he want it to be?
Mr. Fisher: I thought that I had made the Labour party's policy quite clear. We believe in expansion at local authority level by placing on local authorities a statutory responsibility for the arts and by funding the arts through
1148
the rate support grant. There would then be a flowering of activity in response to local needs. That would be genuine devolution. The response would be different, because different communities would have different arts needs. The needs in Gloucester, Cheltenham, Glasgow—even in Grantham—will be different. That would be a truly local policy which would be welcomed by the arts world.
It is interesting to note that neither the Minister nor any of his Back Benchers can name a single company that believes that it is better off after 10 years of Conservative Government. That says it all. The Minister always talks about sponsorship and makes great play of it. He refers to the admirable gifts of people such as Lord Sainsbury, Mr. Clore and Mr. Getty. He should also pay tribute perhaps to Mr. Annenberg at the National gallery.
The Minister has missed the point about sponsorship. In France, private sector sponsorship is far greater than it is here. The reason is that the French Government believe in an arts policy. They are prepared to fund the arts. That attracts individual sponsors. Why should the corporate sector fund the arts when the Government do not have confidence in the importance of an arts policy? When he calculates his European figures, in the Policy Studies Institute study, I hope that they will include sponsorship. That would prove my point that private sector funding of the arts is much greater in those countries where the Government take a lead and say that they believe in funding the arts. That gives confidence to the private sector and a context within which the private sector can work.
The Government are totally at odds with audiences, with what is happening at local authority level and with what is happening in Europe and further afield. The Prime Minister is apparently taking an interest now in the arts. She has not yet exhibited her interest, but I am told that her speeches are beginning to include little phrases, written for her by other people, about how good and important the arts are. I welcome that. I hope that she will go to the theatre or to a concert—even a pop concert. It would be very interesting to see her there. Until she shows a personal interest in the arts, people will treat her statements with some scepticism. The Prime Minister and the Government display a grudging attitude to the arts. They say, "Let somebody else do it." We applaud what is happening in the arts, but the Government appear to be saying that they want somebody else to be responsible for the arts. The Minister commented in his infamous Newcastle speech:
"The arts world must accept the economic and political climate in which we operate."
The arts world does not accept it. It does not like it, and I suspect that people throughout the arts are casting their votes against the Government at the polls today because of their poor policies.
I conclude by referring the Minister to a quote from Bernard Shaw's "Back to Methuselah", in which, in act 1, the serpent says to Adam,
"You see things and you say why? But I dream things that never were and I say why not?'
The Government ask themselves why they should fund the arts, but we—and the country will show that it is with us—ask: why not? The arts are a vital part of our local and national life and identity and deserve to be funded. The Government should recognise the success that is our country's arts and heritage, and should acknowledge the country's mood and back them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 7 o'clock. As many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, I hope that contributions will be brief.
5 pm
Sir Hugh Rossi: My right hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him in his opening the debate on the arts but instead open the second subject for debate, our heritage. In that respect, the first report from the Environment Select Committee, "Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments", is relevant, and I regret that it has taken two and half years since publication for it to come before the House in today's debate. A year after that report's publication, a response by the Department of the Environment was published on 20 January 1988, including replies from the standing conference of deans and provosts of English cathedrals and from the dean and chapter of Ely cathedral.
Generally speaking, the Select Committee report was warmly welcomed. In a letter to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as indicating his approval of much of the contents of the report, commented:
"On those matters where we have not felt able to follow your suggestions you should not feel that the door is necessarily closed for all time. We shall naturally keep our legislative and administrative procedures under review and will remain receptive to imaginative, new ideas for the conservation and preservation of our heritage."
I take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the past two and a half years with matters which have remained outstanding since the Select Committee report and the Government's response.
The Select Committee raised three main issues, as well as a number of miscellaneous matters. Those main issues were the multiplicity of agencies responsible for heritage, the listing and scheduling system for buildings and monuments, and the allocation of financial resources for heritage purposes. The Committee found that the existing multiplicity of agencies with overlapping responsibilities resulted in a dissipation of energies. That was among the matters that we said should be examined, and we recommended that more powers and responsibilities—and, it follows, more resources—should be devolved to English Heritage.
The Committee concluded, and the Government agreed, that too little weight was placed on tourism relating to historic buildings and ancient monuments. In his letter to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remarked:
"Better public access and increased numbers of tourists can … make a significant contribution to the upkeep and preservation of the heritage by providing income and enhanced public awareness. But if the longer term effects are to be positive, it is important that tourism is properly managed and controlled. This requires a degree of expertise and close liaison between the various agencies involved, both nationally and locally. The Government is pursuing these objectives …"
In the 18 months since that letter was written, how far have the Government progressed in pursuing those objectives on which the Select Committee and the Government were wholly in agreement?
The Select Committee found that the listing of historic buildings was basically sound, but recommended that that responsibility be transferred to English Heritage together
1150
with the power to serve building preservation notices—which it already has in respect of London. I regret that, so far, the Government have not thought it right to adopt that particular recommendation, on the ground of political accountability. Nevertheless, we could still raise such matters in the House even though, in the view of the Select Committee, English Heritage should be given prime responsibility.
As to the scheduling of ancient monuments, in the light of very recent experience, the Committee's recommendations are even more relevant today. Earlier this afternoon there was a private notice question on the subject of the Rose theatre. The Committee suggested that the Government should ensure that areas of archaeological importance were extended. Where such areas are declared under an arrangement between local and central Government, prior notice would be required for any operation which disturbed the ground in the area concerned—including flooding and tipping as well as development. Thereafter, a team could be appointed with the power to enter and investigate, and to excavate the site for up to four months. Alternatively, the team could hold a watching brief while the development progressed.
It is possible that in the case of the Rose theatre such an arrangement would have been unnecessary, because we and the country were fortunate that the developers involved took a very responsible attitude to the discovery, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment moved in with £1 million to enable the developers to investigate what measures were necessary to preserve the Rose, which they did with very satisfactory results, having regard to the special situation.
What would have been the outcome if a responsible developer had not been involved in that case? As city centres are redeveloped as part of inner city regeneration, it is likely that many other important remains will be uncovered. What is the Government's current view both of funding to rescue archaeology and of the protection of sites of outstanding historical importance? I emphasise again that we cannot always be sure that redevelopment will be in the hands of responsible developers.
The Select Committee's third major point concerned the financing of our heritage. We were critical of the fact that grants could be applied only when the building qualified as "outstanding". We feel that all grade I buildings without exception should qualify for grant automatically, or they should not be grade I in the first place.
The matter which caused the greatest controversy and which the media enjoyed more than anything else was the suggestion that cathedrals which are not subject to grant should become subject to grant once they had shown that they had done everything in their power to raise the necessary funds for the maintenance, repair and restoration of their buildings. We had the temerity to suggest that perhaps for tourists, as distinct from worshippers—they can readily be defined—there should be a charge of at least £1 per person. In putting forward that suggestion, we realised that we were touching a sensitive area as some people say that there should not be a charge to enter the House of God. As one who likes to attend church regularly, I understand that sentiment. However, we are not talking about people from the locality of the cathedral, for whom a part can always be set aside, but about chara-trippers who arrive in multitudes and by the mere weight of their feet and the probing of

1151
their fingers cause perhaps as much erosion of the fabric of the cathedral as the exterior suffers through acid rain, which is the subject of another report upon which I shall not dwell now.
Mr. Fisher: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be extremely apprehensive to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about a charge for tourists. How on earth can one distinguish between tourists and residents? Have not tourists the right to worship and pray in cathedrals? When considering funding, did his Committee look at the experience of Germany and other European countries where the state provides some funding through the taxation system and gets around the problem of making a totally impossible distinction between those who wish to pray and those who wish to look at a museum?
Sir Hugh Rossi: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not had the advantage of studying the report, although it has been in the Library for two and a half years. We went to Germany to look at the German experience, which involves one third funding from central Government, one third from local government and one third from voluntary subscriptions. If the hon. Gentleman had read the reasons that we received from the deans and provosts of English cathedrals and from the dean and chapter of Ely cathedral, he might have thought a little before leaping in with the question that he has just asked. The dean and chapter of Ely cathedral wrote:
"It is not our experience, after nearly two years of weekday admission charges at Ely, that an entrance charge militates against the character of a Cathedral as a House of God. On the contrary, the prayer board at the far end of the charging area upon which visitors are encouraged to leave intercessions to be used at daily Evensong, has been so full of prayers during the past summer that it has been an embarrassment to recite them adequately at the Service.
Moreover, our experience of charging is that visitors stay far longer in the cathedral having come for a deliberate visit rather than using the buildings as a wet weather call. Problems of noisy parties rushing through the building in ten minutes and of misconduct of bored visitors have practically disappeared."
That is the experience of one cathedral that has followed the advice given by the Select Committee. The practice predated the Committee. That experience prompted us to include the suggestion and recommendation in our report.
The consequence is that Ely cathedral, although it is not on the usual tourist route as York and Durham are, now has an annual fund available to follow a programme of proper maintenance and repair to its building and a surplus which it sends to the diocesan fund. The Select Committee recommendation was that if the popular cathedrals—in tourist terms—were to adopt that policy, the surplus could then be used to set up a national fund for the preservation of those cathedrals which are off the tourist beaten track.
I realise that that view is not shared by every dean and chapter of every cathedral. The pious hope expressed by the provosts is:
"it is the pastoral task of a cathedral to turn tourists into visitors, visitors into guests, guests into pilgrims, and pilgrims into worshippers."
That is a laudable ambition, but whether it has much relation to the way in which tourists react today is open to question. We rely very much on the experience of one cathedral which has had the courage to follow that course
1152
and has solved its financial problems without in any way detracting from the nature of the cathedral or causing any disturbance whatsoever to the worshippers.
Mr. Heffer: I find what the hon. Gentleman said fascinating. As a member of the Church, I would strongly object to anyone having to pay to enter our cathedrals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visit Italy regularly. Perhaps he knows more about this than I do, but I can think of no cathedral or church that I have visited—I go to as many as I can—in Venice or anywhere else in Italy where one has to pay. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can point one out to me.
Sir Hugh Rossi: One in Venice immediately comes to mind—Santa Maria Maggiore, Vergine, or some similar name—and I have a photograph of a plaque outside saying that visitors are requested to put 1,500 lire in the box on entering.
Mr. Heffer: It must have been the one I missed.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Perhaps it was.
Mr. Heffer: Is it on the island?
Sir Hugh Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to arrange the funds for a visit, I would be happy to join him and point the church out to him.
I shall leave that point as it is not strictly a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the church authorities, who must decide for themselves what to do. I raised the matter because the question has crossed my mind more than once in relation to the problems faced by Hereford cathedral, which has refused to follow Ely and impose a charge. The money needed for repairs could not be raised by appeal. It then went through the dreadful experience over Mappa Mundi and failed to raise money. Its appeal has failed and it is now in dire straits financially. It does not know which way to turn, but perhaps Ely has pointed the way.
5.19 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The Minister spoke not with complacency but with astonishing insensitivity for the feelings of many people in the arts world and beyond. It is strange that he should have spoken in that tone, because he referred to the general background in which a Minister for the Arts has to operate. He is concerned not only with artistic matters but with the cultural background of the country. It is astonishing that a Minister in that position should speak in such a tone. He has only to use his eyes, ears and intelligence—I am sure he has all three—to find out what is being said in many different circles.
The Minister referred to the universities and the new examination. I am sure that I meet a different type of person at universities from the right hon. Gentleman and others. My experience is that there is more depression and lower morale in the universities than at any time I can remember, except when the Government were pushing through their Bill affecting universities and threatening action against them. Those threats were partly withdrawn at the last moment. Even the universities with the best funding are complaining about depression and low morale.
Fewer people will be recruited as history teachers in universities. The brain drain is happening. If anybody

1153
cares to read the details, there was another report in The Guardian yesterday. Anyone who does not understand the depression in the universities does not understand the real mood among academics in this country.
A more obvious example, to which the Minister also referred, is broadcasting. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that there is confidence within those circles, that morale is high and that they are sharing in the supposed great fruits of 10 years of wonderful industrial and economic progress? There is no such mood. There is a mood of fright and alarm. If the Minister cared to open the newspapers, he could read about that almost every day.
There is also the strike at the BBC. There was a much bigger response to strike action than most people had calculated. It is just one expression of the feeling inside the BBC. The morale within the BBC is even worse than that in private companies. It is alarmed at what the Government intend to do, and it has every right to be alarmed. An excellent article in The Independent described the widespread, corrosive fears of privatisation within the BBC and how it thinks it is being pushed in that direction. If the Minister does not think that that is the mood, he should talk to some of the people in charge. He should also talk to those who manage his financial affairs. He is supposed to be one of the great experts because of the way in which he responds to questions by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The BBC overseas service is one of the finest institutions in the country. It has to grapple with the Government's refusal and failure year after year to match the inflation rate with the money they provide. If the Minister disputes the figures, he has not listened to the people who do the job. The overseas service is magnificent: hon. Members on both sides of the House say that constantly whenever we debate it.
Those who run the overseas service make the best possible use of the small resources available. I am not criticising the people who run it. However, the Government, by implication, are constantly criticising because they are constantly squeezing the amount available to spend. Therefore, in the past few years the overseas service has had to be restricted in many ways. There has been a good example of that in the past week. I am sure that millions of people across China would have been eager to hear the BBC reports on the circumstances there. However, fewer people in China are able to hear those reports than some years ago. That is partly because of the financial squeeze. The BBC has hardly enough money to place telephone calls to China, let alone to provide a broadcast service in that part of the world.
It is not a laughing matter. The Government should be considering a major expansion of the money allocated to the BBC overseas service and the BBC generally so that it can overcome the shockingly low morale that exists. The BBC is one of the best institutions in the country. The Prime Minister cannot bear to see an organisation that has performed well for the nation over the years. She has always got to see whether she can shake it up or change it. She has already shown what a catastrophe such action can cause by the changes in the National Health Service. The same thing has happened with the universities and broadcasting. In the face of all that, it is wrong for the Minister to be so complacent.
I seek to reply to those general arguments because they were raised by the Minister. Usually in such debates my
1154
hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is present to put his arguments. He is not here today because of illness, so he cannot give us his assistance. However, he has done the next best thing by producing a book on the subject. I am sure that it has been read by all Opposition Members but some Conservative Members may not have completed their education. I recommend it most strongly. It is entitled "Glasnost in Britain". It is published by Macmillan and edited by Norman Buchan and Tricia Sumner. It is a fine book and gives a clearer picture of what has happened in the past 10 years than anything we have heard from the Minister.
The articles in the book cover the many different themes that are relevant to the debate, but I shall quote a sentence prophylactically. It is from an article by the Earl of Stockton. I know that his grandfather is not regarded favourably by the Government but I hope that they will not visit the sins of the grandfather on the grandson, particularly when he has written an excellent and witty article. He has inherited his grandfather's gift in that respect. The Earl of Stockton warns about VAT on books and says that that issue has not yet been settled. He wants to ensure that it is settled. I should like an absolute assurance from the Government that there will be no retreat on VAT on books.
The excellent article says:
"There is a certain Orwellian irony that the last time we defended the printed word was in 1984."
He was referring to the campaign in 1984 to fend off the imposition of VAT on books. He goes on to say:
"There are those who say that the book trade is unduly alarmist. Well, I am not a hysteric, but nor am I an ostrich. The threat of taxation on the printed word is not only unnecessary, uneconomic and essentially illiberal, but the mechanisms of its impositions are, I suspect, probably corrupt and tyrannical in the most insidious fashion".
The article elaborates that case.
I hope that the Government will now give us an absolute assurance that, whatever happens and whatever the dispute is about, whether or not it is about how the new Common Market is to be dealt with, there will be no departure from the absolute undertaking that there will be no VAT on books and that the Government are not prepared to allow that to go through.
That article should be circulated to every Government Member. I am sure that, on that matter at least, the Minister for the Arts will agree with what I am saying and he is the best person to know how many of his Cabinet colleagues need educating on the subject.
Let me come now to a more major matter that concerns the right hon. Gentleman. About a year ago, in a debate on the arts, we discussed whether the amounts of money that the museums had to spend had been properly increased over the previous few years, whatever might be the promise for the next year or two. As I recall, at that time we had just had the report from the independent committee which had investigated those matters. It showed that, just as there has been a squeeze on the BBC, the universities and others, so a squeeze had been put on the museums. By not making up their money to cover inflation, the Government were, in effect, imposing a cut. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that that report discussed how museum staff throughout Britain were having to bear the burden of the Government's failure to deal with such matters.
In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he does not have any special responsibility in such matters, let me

1155
make the point even more directly. He referred to the Victoria and Albert museum. In a year when there has been such a crisis in that institution, the right hon. Gentleman's references to the subject were derisory. He did not even attempt to discuss the major questions. It is no good him saying that he has mentioned them on other occasions so that there is no need to do so again. He made one reference to the museum, but he did not make any reference to the crisis there. Does he deny that there is a crisis? If he does, he should study the debate that took place in the other place on 22 and 23 March on that subject initiated by Lord Annan. I am sure that he has done so already, but I invite other hon. Members to do so.
The noble Lord Annan is not a scaremonger, but he was outraged by what had happened at the Victoria and Albert museum, and he used many pertinent and potent phrases to describe it. He said that the way in which some of the people had been sacked was vulgar and brutal. He used a series of further words to describe the situation—charges with which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have had some sympathy. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman, or any civilised hon. Member, could think that to sack people in the way that they were was the proper way in which to act.
But the background to the matter affects the right hon. Gentleman even more directly. The noble Lord Annan gave details of the Victoria and Albert museum's finances, which showed that its crisis was largely provoked by the lack of money. If the right hon. Gentleman questions what I say, he need only read what the noble Lord Annan said. He did not just give his own figures. He said:
"However, there is a far more serious charge for the Government to face. The deputy chairman of the trustees, Sir Michael Butler, tells us that the finances of the Victoria and Albert have been cut each year for the past 13 years by 3 per cent. Now the Government are not honouring the pay awards to which they are a party … By 1992, so I understand, the V & A will be in deficit unless it gets rid of staff. Is that one reason why eight curatorial staff have been asked to take voluntary retirement?"
He went on:
"I call this policy dishonest and dishonourable".
Those charges are serious and they were sustained by many others who spoke in the debate. No one need take my word for that; they can read the speeches of the noble Lords who supported the noble Lord Annan.
At least the Government's policy towards the Victoria and Albert has made a great contribution to Britain's anthology of invective. The mastery of invective shown in the other place to describe what had happened in the Victoria and Albert was considerable. As I have said, the noble Lord Annan presented the case strongly, but I think that the prize should go to the noble Lord Goodman, who certainly knows something about these matters, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody else should try to push aside what he had to say. He described what had happened in a paragraph which must have caused a shudder throughout the other place. I shall not quote it now, but anyone who says that I am exaggerating should read that debate. I promise that they will not have any difficulty in doing so because the case against what was done was stated by masters of the English language.
The Government had two replies and two spokesmen in that debate. Neither replied on the question of the money, the one that affects the right hon. Gentleman. Neither
1156
replied to the charge made by the noble Lord Annan, and sustained by others, that the real money that can be spent on maintaining the museum—some of its money goes on repairs, and so on—has been cut and cut, and that, under the prospective plans, there will be still further cuts. The Government made no consistent or reputable reply to that charge, despite the fact that they answered in two different ways. On one happly occasion—again, if anyone thinks that I am exaggerating he can read the debate—the two Government spokesmen found themselves repudiating each other because they got mixed up about who had given the orders to the trustees and those who run the Victoria and Albert to sack the people involved.
Even at the end of the debate, there was no agreement between the noble Lord Armstrong and the other Government spokesmen about who had given the instructions. The noble Lord Armstrong is an interesting spokesman on the subject. He has a reputation of being, in that famous phrase, economical with the truth. I do not wish to make any such platitudinous reference. He almost has a taste for extravagant platitude as well. Explaining the situation, Lord Armstrong said:
"There is some suggestion that we are all appointed with some undisclosed and sinister mandate from the Prime Minister. We are of course all appointed by the Prime Minister because that is how Parliament said that we should be appointed in the National Heritage Act".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1989; Vol. 505, c. 766–97.]
It is perfectly true that a decision was made along those lines, but nobody then thought that the Prime Minister's power of appointment would be used so swiftly in such a critical case as this to appoint someone such as Lord Armstrong. He is certainly one of them—in that sense, he has great qualifications—but his appointment was bound to give rise to anxieties among the people who run the museum.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is nonsense and that I am exaggerating the importance of the matter, he should have taken the opportunity to say what will happen at the Victoria and Albert. Is the right hon. Gentleman merely going to accept the fait accompli imposed by Lord Armstrong and others with the approval, concurrence and incitement of the Prime Minister?
If anyone questions what I say, I invite them to read the article written on this subject by someone who knows far more about the Victoria and Albert museum than anyone in this House, or in the other place, and far more than Lord Armstrong, Lord Carrington and the others who were appointed for a year or two. That article was written for the New York Review of Books and I am glad to say that The Guardian republished it in this country. That article on what has happened to one of our greatest museums represents the most serious discussion on it that has been published in the whole of the controversy.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the article and I am sure that his civil servants gave it to him. If that is so, what is the Minister's answer to it? The article is entitled "The Fall of a Great Museum" and it was written by John Pope-Hennessy. He had great experience at that museum and at other museums since. I have not heard anyone—not even a Government Whip—try to blacken the reputation of John Pope-Hennessy and his right to speak on such matters.
Anyone who reads that article will see that it adds up to an appalling indictment of the Government's misuse of power. It outlines the extremely serious consequences for

1157
the future of the museum. I shall give one quote from many. He talks of the danger of sacking people of such qualification and says:
"If the dismissals are persisted the Victoria"—
Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I appreciate his interest in this matter, but he has been speaking for 20 mintues. This is a short debate and, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that many of us still want to speak.
Mr. Foot: I do not believe that that is a point of order, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed.
The serious charge in the article reads:
"If the dismissals are persisted the Victoria and Albert will be more ignorant than at any other period in this century."
The museum relies on the advice of its experts. The article concludes:
"When universities are starved of funds there is no means by which members of the public can assess the consequences, but when a vast museum with an international reputation is reduced to an object of ridicule, the result is all too evident. To repair the damage and to get the museum once more into decent working order, some form of special grant may be required, but it will be justified because in its future not only the fate of a magnificent collection, but national self-respect is inescapably involved."
The Minister is as directly responsible as anyone in government and he should give us the reassurances and the funds required so that this appalling catastrophe—the fall of a great museum—is remedied.
I happened to go to Paris last week and I saw what has been done at the new musée d'Orsay. We have some magnificent museums, but anyone who has seen what has been done in France in the past four years could not quarrel too much about the extra money that would be required to bring our museums up to the French standard. The President has some understanding of such matters and the French have created a magnificent new museum in which some of the greatest treasures of French art will be displayed. The French Government are wise enough to know that no single investment since 1945 compares with their investment in that museum.
The Victoria and Albert museum has every right and claim to be a wonderful organisation. In this tenth year of the Prime Minister's operations, the Government should compare what has happened this year to the Victoria and Albert with the new museum in France; they should take that comparison to heart.
I apologise to other hon. Members, but I want to say something further about a matter that is still of great importance to this House and which should be watched with great care—the Rose theatre. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on his vigilance in this matter. I do not believe that the question is settled yet. The Secretary of State for the Environment today seemed uncertain about whether it was an importance matter after all. He demurred from making such a claim. He does not normally show such bashfulness or parade his humility, but today he said that he did not wish to be too assertive about whether the Rose theatre was such a treasure after all.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the appeals that have been made for that theatre. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has visited the site and has heard the direct appeals from people such as Dame Peggy Ashcroft and others who have spoken so
1158
eloquently upon the matter. I assure Ministers that those people will continue to campaign until the matter is settled properly.
If Ministers have any doubts about the theatre, I commend to them the last paragraph of the article on this subject that appeared in The Times Literary Supplement of last week:
"The Rose is a unique phenomenon. Its dates put it, and the changes Henslowe made to it, at the height of the evolution of the Elizabethan playhouse design, neatly disposed between the Theatre of 1576 in Shoreditch, which gave up its timber frame to make the original Globe, and the Swan and Globe alongside the Rose in 1595 and 1599. It gave Marlowe his early chance, and he gave it the first great stage successes of the London theatre. It may well have been Shakespeare's own training ground. In the last three months"—
I stress, three months—
"theatre historians have been given more fresh and utterly reliable information about the design of the Shakespearean stage than they have managed to scrape together from written-sources in the past three centuries. To lose it would be a new kind of Shakespearean tragedy."
It is our business in this House to ensure that that tragedy does not occur. We have not had such assurance from the right hon. Gentleman yet. I am sure that people in all constituencies and the leaders of the theatre world, Dame Peggy Ashcroft at their head, will make certain that that new Shakespearean tragedy shall not be permitted.
5.48 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has just referred to the creation of the musée d'Orsay in Paris. Anyone who has seen it would agree that it is a fantastic museum. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution was characteristic of the Opposition as it showed a total lack of appreciation of the outstanding successes being achieved in the arts and the current strength of the British arts.
I, too, was in Paris just a few days ago when the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I am lucky enough to be Chairman, was considering the French museums. We saw the great achievements, but we also heard that the position regarding acquisitions is worse for the great French museums than it is for the great British museums. There are also other respects in which the French look to us rather wistfully, one of them being the amount of private support and private patronage that we have been able to generate in our system.
If we recognise the greatness of the musée d'Orsay and dwell with fascination upon the pyramid at the Louvre—both great achievements—we can also talk enthusiastically of what is about to happen to the National gallery and the arrival of the Tate in Liverpool. We can also talk about the Burrell collection and the Clore gallery. We have many things in this country of which we can be proud and in relation to which the Government have played a full part.
Obviously, I do not accept the point of view of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who talked about a cultural balance sheet but then made it clear that he was interested only in public expenditure. Although that is not right, I believe profoundly that the state is a crucial provider of the arts and would not accept for one moment that any other argument makes sense. We have achieved a good balance between public and private provision. That strategy has been developed effectively in recent years and long may it continue.

1159
One cannot help thinking of the enormous contributions made by people who are not essentially part of the state apparatus. One such person was Robin Howard, who died a day or two ago and who made a unique contribution to British contemporary dance. Those who knew him knew that he was a buccaneer, not a bureaucrat. A system that allows for that while also providing a national theatre of the present quality is well founded.
In the last couple of years, we in London have been privileged to see more great paintings than I imagine have ever been open to view in our history. We have had a succession of marvellous exhibitions, covering many different types of works of art. Often they have appeared in places such as the National gallery or the Hayward, to which I pay tribute, but such exhibitions have also been sponsored by our large industrial companies.
Such partnerships seem to work also for the good of those people who are lucky enough to be able to see the things that we can see in London. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly emphasised what is happening in other parts of the country. Indeed, that was an important element in the Art Council's famous policy document of a year or two ago.
The wonderful developments in touring opera in this country have already been mentioned. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central talked about the difficulties encountered by Kent Opera. Today, as throughout the past, a feature of supporting the arts is that one encounters ups and downs. We shall never have—I certainly hope that we do not—a position in which one can simply collect a cheque from the powers that be without anybody discussing it.
Against that, we have an array of astonishingly good opera companies. I have been lucky enough to see two of them in the past few days. One was Opera 80 which did an absolutely magnificent production of "Figaro" and the other was Pavilion Opera, which has just had a coup in performing in Versailles and, unusually, with an orchestra rather than with the gifted pianist who normally accompanies the company. I gather that all Paris thought that that was the cat's whiskers, or whatever the French equivalent may be. That shows the strength and diversity of what we can see in this country at present.
At the local level I am engaged in an exercise to upgrade Buckinghamshire's county museum. The local county council is taking a sympathetic view. Again, good things are happening in other parts of the country as well as in the capital.
The Government's funding policy is not directed at supporting only the classical and traditional arts. It is genuinely designed to allow the avant garde to flourish, even if occasionally that may cause some slight embarrassment to Ministers. Indeed, such occurrences are very good for Ministers. We are in a strong position.
The Arts Council very much appreciates its three-year funding, although there is a problem with inflation. We all know perfectly well that inflation is now running at a higher rate than any of us would have wished. When the Select Committee of which I am Chairman looked at that matter, we decided that the possibility of inflation was a price worth paying for the certainty, security and ability to plan. We felt that the benefits of the three-year funding scheme outweighed the risks of inflation. However, we also
1160
stated that if things got out of hand we hoped that the scheme could be reconsidered. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to have a three-year funding policy and to stick to it.
As another sign of the Government's support for the arts, I must add that as a vice-chairman of the British Council I am delighted that this year the council is receiving an extra £6 million of new money. That is welcome in our work to present the excellence of British arts in other parts of the world. The picture is encouraging in many ways.
I should like to draw the attention of the Labour party to what happened with the abolition of the Greater London council and of the metropolitan county councils. Those who sat through the prolonged debates and listened to the saga of grief, horror and angst that was portrayed by the opponents of our provisions, who said that we would be destroying the arts in London and in the other great metropolitan areas, must now face the fact that the record shows that, far from arts funding declining following abolition, it has increased. That is clearly the view of the Arts Council and can be seen from the statistics given in evidence to the Select Committee. I confess that over time it will become harder to tell what the real picture is because those statistics cannot be used for ever. However, it is clear that there has been an increase rather than a decrease in support for the arts.
I am happy to note that the credit for that lies with local government in particular. As one had always believed would happen, the successor local authorities have not said, "We are not interested in the arts and will do nothing about them"; with help from central Government they have picked up the shortfall that would otherwise have occurred. Again, that supports the premise that the Labour party is too interested in alarmism and is not sufficiently willing to look at the facts.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to the importance of broadcasting to the life of the arts. We know perfectly well that the BBC is a major and fundamental provider of the arts in this country. Although like any institution it has its ups and downs, nevertheless we accept that it has generally been devoted to quality. Important reassurances have recently been given by the Government that the crucial instruments will remain as they are. We have now had the announcement about the future of Channel 4, which seems a fairly good safeguard to ensure the quality of that important station. It is clear that the review of broadcasting will not leave the BBC as a whole in a weakened position. There is every reason to believe that Channel 2 will continue to be a major provider of the arts. We must watch carefully to see what happens in relation to radio. However, I believe that the Government's decisions on broadcasting will ensure that our heritage in broadcasting presentation of the arts will be preserved.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts rightly paid tribute to the way in which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has brought forward the national curriculum. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the fact that art and music are clearly specified as being among the guaranteed subjects in the national curriculum. However, I accept that there is a problem with music because the shortage of music teachers looks like being serious. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is considering the issue of supply teachers in the 1990s at the moment and I hope that we shall be able to make

1161
some constructive and useful comments. If my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts knows of any ways in which he can support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in this matter, I hope that he will do so. It is absolutely right to spread music through the curriculum and I hope and believe that we can make a success of that.
What we are seeing today in the arts is a richness previously unparalleled in this country. Last summer I visited Siena. In the cathedral museum I read an account of how, when Duccio had finished painting the Maesta, that supreme work of art, it was carried in triumph through the streets of Siena and the whole town had three days' holiday. That is the desirable ultimate objective that I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to achieve. In the meanwhile, and even if it takes a year or two to bring about, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing and wish him all power to his elbow.
5.59 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The theme of what I want—briefly—to say concerns tension between culture and commerce, which has been exercising my mind for some weeks.
I do not think that anyone would have put much money on the likelihood of the Rose theatre being the subject of an Adjournment debate and two statements in the House within a couple of months, nor was it predictable that our cultural heritage would be the lead item on the national news for several days. Thankfully, however, that has happened—at the same time, interestingly, as the struggle not hundreds of miles away to find a way of preserving the Mappa Mundi for the people of Hereford. I have an interest in that issue too, because my family comes from the area and I occasionally slip hack to involve myself in that struggle as a change from concentrating exclusively on matters on the south side of the Thames.
The bit of north Southwark which has been in the news recently is, of course, an enormously important part of our national cultural heritage. Not only is it the origin of the pilgrims' journey in "The Canterbury Tales" and the place where Shakespearean England had its most glorious flowering, but it later became the centre of Dickens' world and has been home to many other important authors and artists.
It is interesting to reflect that the current issue of whether the Rose theatre should be scheduled, and how it should be preserved, began with the archaeologists. Academics and authors had predicted that the Rose theatre might be found—as well as the Hope, Swan and Globe—but it took the archaeologists to produce the goods. Archaeology in Britain is considerably underfunded, including rescue archaeology, which should be a preliminary to all development. Of course all that is found cannot always be preserved in this capital city or anywhere else, but we need the mechanism to discover what is there and then to evaluate its importance, which requires well-funded archaeological services. My plea is for better funding in the future.
We have come a long way. Without the Greater London archaeology service we probably would not have found the remains of the Rose. Thirty years ago, in the 1950s, when a previous office block was built in Park street, archaeological investigation did not happen and the Rose was not discovered. The progress that has been made
1162
should encourage us, and it should also encourage the Government. The warm response elicited by the excavation and by many others recently should lead the Government to believe that funding such activities more generously from the public purse would be a good investment.
In paragraph 139 of its report on historic buildings and ancient monuments, which is one of the documents informing our debate, the Environment Select Committee recommended that
"the Secretary of State should initiate consultations with local authorities with a view to establishing further AAIs"—
that is, areas of archaeological importance. The report is dated January 1987, and the Government response was published in January 1988. The Government were not convinced then—a year and a half ago—that further designations would be justified. They said that they were undertaking a survey of the five areas already so designated. Significantly, those areas—Canterbury, York, Chester, Exeter and Hereford—are five of our most splendid cities and are of enormous archaeological interest.
I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and her predecessor about this and I plead with the Government not to give up the mechanism provided in the Act, so that areas of archaeological importance can continue to be designated. We have areas of listed buildings and conservation areas; areas above ground are marked out as being of particular significance, and logic dictates that the same should apply to areas that are to be unearthed. I hope that the Department's laborious researches finish soon, and that we shall receive confirmation that other areas can be designated. I include north Southwark in that hope, as I would be expected to.
I wish to deal with one or two issues relating specifically to the Rose. The Rose was, is and will continue to be a classic example of the conflict between the rights of the property owner—in this case Postel, the Post Office pensions board—along with those of the developers, Imry, and the wider interest. It was known that the Rose might be there. A 1971 report had warned that there might be a national and international outcry if, when it was discovered, it was not protected. The developers did not embark on the work in ignorance. We cannot say, "Poor developer—fancy turning up something like that unexpectedly in a car park or basement with no foreknowledge."
As evidenced by the history of the discovery of the Rose, it seems that we are still suffering from a lack of intelligent, strategic planning. Surely the logic of events should be this—first excavate, then decide what can be put on top. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, we are now in a crazy, illogical position. Imry submits its first plans and is given planning permission; the Rose theatre is subsequently discovered, and eventually Imry is persuaded not to go ahead. Ministers and English Heritage are very influential. Imry eventually submits its revised and second plans. Even after that—a week or so ago—Imry knows that some of the areas that it intends to pile are too near the theatre, and it still does not take account of the parts that we have not yet had a chance to see.
Only this week a statement was made by the chief archaeologist of English Heritage, saying that if the archaeological work to be done in the next few weeks finds more of the theatre we shall have to go back to Southwark borough council, which must then go back to the

1163
developers to ask them to alter their plans again. It is ludicrous to dig and, if something is found, change the plans, and then dig a bit more and perhaps need to change them again.
The reason why there is such a demand for scheduling is that it would give complete protection at law to the site as now excavated, and would give it the status that it clearly deserves. I hope that the Government will change their mind, because I believe that their fear that the cost would be millions or tens of millions of pounds is not justified. There may be some further delay, and that will certainly involve some cost, but I think that a way can be found to meet the cost, and that it will not be enormous. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us the rate of any compensation that might be payable.
Nothing in either the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 or the National Heritage Act 1983 suggests that cost—or, indeed, competing commercial pressures—should be a consideration in the decision whether a site should be scheduled as a national monument. Since the ancestor of a previous colleague of mine, Lord Avebury, campaigned in the 19th century for a list of national monuments, the logic has been the same. Monuments of national importance should be scheduled so that the protection that they deserve will follow as a consequence of their appearing in that list.
The other conflict to which I referred at the outset between culture and commerce is that which has been manifesting itself in Hereford between the cathedral authorities wanting money to look after their cathedral and the commercial pressures militating in favour of selling articles of great value so as to acquire those funds.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), about the evidence he had received from Ely cathedral. As the Minister will appreciate, many people still regard it as inappropriate for cathedrals to be among those places which one must pay to visit. I share that view, but I hope we shall not hold up the Mappa Mundi story so far as an example of how it is impossible to raise money in the private sector or from voluntary subscription for the protection of our heritage, ecclesiastical or otherwise.
I think that the Hereford cathedral authorities or their advisers—I say this respectfully, as I have said it to them personally—made a mess of it. Had they asked the public to contribute £100, rather than £1,000, they would have got far more in than they did. Had they taken up the offers of substantial gifts that had been made, they would have been well on their way to raising the money that they wanted. There is of course a national responsibility also to look after our ecclesiastical heritage through taxpayers' money, but there is also an opportunity for private sector contribution, which does not override but is consistent with those other aesthetic, religious and cultural requirements.
I hope that the end of this year's struggles between culture and commerce will be that we shall find ways of protecting the arts in a more logical and far-sighted way.
6.12 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: I refuse to be obsessed by the Rose theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has made strong and effective representations about it, as no doubt has the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). A satisfactory scheme was announced this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by which what is left of that important relic will be preserved for future generations. It will be shielded by the umbrella of a building, which will protect it from rain, snow, frost and sunshine. Some of those who have been jumping up and down about it have been going over the top, and I believe that Shakespeare would have cared more about the live theatre, to which I shall refer later.
In his excellent speech, the Minister referred to the high standards of art in Britain. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the splendid programme of summer concerts at the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, where standards remain as high as ever. British Army bands remain one of our finest traditions. They lift the spirits of the nation. Who does not feel uplifted by the sound and sight of a British Army band? They enhance morale, promote recruitment and, from an artistic point of view, provide a first-class training in the playing of musical instruments and, from an economic point of view, military bands help to attract to our shores visitors whose spending generates employment and income. That point applies to all of the arts and heritage; hence its relevance. Visitors to Britain spend not only on the arts and heritage. They also spend on shopping, hotels, restaurants and internal transport. They thereby create jobs and increase incomes. All that provides a tax yield to the Government.
It is for the arts and heritage that the visitors come. They come to our theatres, operas, ballet, concerts, museums, art galleries, art auctions, historic houses, cathedrals, abbeys, churches and to visit our countryside. They come for our history and traditions and in particular they come because of our royal family. They come to see our processions and parades and our Army bands.
They certainly do not come to Britain for the weather and, if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) were still in his place, I would have said that they certainly do not come to see our footballers. They come for our arts and heritage and they bring substantial economic benefit to our country, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) should address if he is fortunate enough to be called to take part in the debate, for he has not previously done so.
Not that economic benefit is the only reason to support the arts, because of course there are many reasons. The arts are a tremendous asset to the nation. We should build on our strengths, and that is what the Minister has done. He is doing a superb job, and the arts in Britain are flourishing as never before. Consider, for example, the London theatre. It is well patronised. It is going like a bomb. For the best plays, it is often difficult to get seats. In Britain as a whole, more people go to the theatre every week than go to football matches. The number going to the theatre is increasing steadily. But I want to raise some specific matters. One is ticket touts. Ticket touting is an unpleasant and greedy trade. It gives a bad impression to foreign visitors and I urge the Government to consider action to deal with it.

1165
The Dominion theatre is an important theatre with 2,000 seats. It could be threatened by a planning application for development on the site. Its loss would be serious, both from an entertainment and planning point of view. I shall be writing to the Under-Secretary who will be responding to this debate, since she deals with planning matters. I realise that she will be unable to give any undertaking at this stage, but I trust that she will consider my points carefully when I have put them in writing to her.
Mr. Bowis: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the Dominion theatre in the London scene. At present, the theatre is the home of the London Festival Ballet, the English national ballet, and it and the English National Opera have another crucial problem to face—that of funding, with the change of local government finance affecting Westminster council.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the sensible arrangement that existed between the Department of the Environment and Westminster council on the abolition of the GLC, so that funding could be arranged by and continued through that council. That is no longer possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will ask the Under-Secretary to give an assurance that she will make sure that appropriate funding is carried on so that those two excellent companies can plan ahead with some confidence.
Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm, when she replies to the debate, that she has taken note of that important point, that she will consult the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Local Government and will try to obtain a solution to a problem which has arisen through no fault of the English National Opera and of the Dominion theatre, both of which are great assets to London and the nation. As for the National theatre, as other hon. Members want to speak, may I express the hope that the Government will continue to look sympathetically at the points raised in his Adjournment last month by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad).
We enjoy a vast range of concerts in London. Attendances at them are increasing steadily. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that more subsidy was available in Paris. That may be so, but there are fewer concerts in Paris. What on earth is the point of having more subsidy and fewer concerts? I hope that the Government will give a fair wind to the excellent proposals of the South Bank board to develop the facilities available there.
With the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary is responsible for royal parks, such as Bushy park, which is next to Hampton Court in my constituency, where there is a magnificent avenue of chestnut trees. Those trees are greatly cherished by my constituents in Teddington, Hampton, Hampton Wick and Hampton Hill. They are greatly loved and admired. Most of them are sound, although a few were damaged in the 1987 hurricane, and a few others are diseased.
There has been a rumour that there might be a clean sweep, with a large replanting and a new start made. The Under-Secretary was kind enought to see me last month, when I put to her the strong views of my constituents that, except for stunted and badly diseased or badly damaged trees, the whole of the avenue should be retained. I ask her
1166
again to note the strong feeling that exists about the matter and I urge her to spare this beautiful avenue of magnificent chestnut trees.
6.19 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be brief. I am the last Opposition speaker except for my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I shall give Conservative Members an opportunity to take part in the debate. If they keep their speeches brief, they will all gel: in because the winding-up speeches are to start at 20 minutes to 7.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central on his contribution. I know of his genuine interest in the arts and in our heritage. I also appreciate the interest of the Minister for the Arts, and he knows that I am interested because I am always here when I can be for arts and heritage debates and regularly ask questions. However, I am never satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answers about the arts. I also compliment the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary private secretary, the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who also has a particular interest. We have one massive interest between us in the arts, and that is in the cinema industry. There is much marvellous acting in the cinema and I and the hon. Gentleman frequently talk about it. Of course, I recognise his family connections in the industry and when I meet him I always ask him how his beautiful mother is getting on.
Although the Minister wants to do much, he is pinned down by public expenditure restrictions. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is always criticising local authorities about their expenditure. He does not realise that local authorities have to spend the money because of Government cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made that clear in the debate.
We in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire have a real interest in the arts and in our heritage. It has some beautiful buildings and many people are interested in their preservation and in the activities that go on in the county. Nottinghamshire county council does a first-class finance job and Nottingham city council also contributes. When the beautiful theatre was built in Nottingham the Tories on the city council criticised it. Now they all make good use of it. The Tories in Nottingham always criticise Labour policies, but they make good use of the facilities that are provided.
Everything in the birthplace of D. H. Lawrence in my constituency has been preserved. It is beautiful and people come from all over the world to see it. The local authority is responsible for the upkeep because the Government do not want to know about such expenditure. However, they encourage people to come from abroad because that puts money into the Treasury. But when we ask for help to provide and preserve the proper facilities, the Government do not want to know. I know that the Minister would like to do much more than he is doing. I appeal to him to keep banging on the Treasury door, to keep getting stuck in. Let us have the money to do the things that need to be done. If the Government continue to cut the money to local authorities, we shall really suffer.
I shall finish by speaking about the Byron society in Nottinghamshire. Newstead abbey is a beautiful building.

1167
I am a member of the Byron society, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I had a letter this week from the society's marvellous secretary, Maureen Crisp, appealing to me to buy a society tie. I reminded my right hon. Friend to send his £6·50 for his tie. I have sent for one, and I appeal to hon. Members to send for them as well. That will enable them to contribute to our heritage, and wearing it in this place will show their support for a worthy cause. At the same time they will realise that they are contributing to the preservation of our heritage, as Nottingham city council and Broxtowe borough council are doing.
6.25 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: I am the only authentic opposition voice in the Chamber, bearing in mind the middle-class Opposition Members who are present. I have not been to any wonderful artistic place abroad, although I got my feet wet in the Pacific about a fortnight ago.
The subsidy to the arts is approaching £500 million per annum, and the Arts Council grant increased by 10 per cent. last year to £150 million. It will approach £200 million by the end of next year. The subsidy for two people going to the theatre is almost £60, more than we pay to an unemployed man and his wife to keep themselves. They receive £56 but the middle-class couples and the arty types who want to go to the ballet and the opera receive £60 from public sources. That is a disgrace. The inflation rate last year was about 5 per cent., but we increased the arts grant by 10 per cent. We tell pensioners that pensions can only increase in line with inflation, but for so-called arts lovers the subsidy is increased by more than that so that they can indulge in personal pleasure. That is also a disgrace.
Who benefits from the subsidy? It is certainly not the poor. Those who benefit are the effective arts lobby, the professionals who milk the system, Sir Peter Hall, who got not only a knighthood but a small fortune from public sector funds, and the arts lovers who want to enjoy their pleasures—provided the rest of us subsidise them.
Why should there be subsidies? As I said before, it is said that we are subsidising our heritage. Is a fat Italian singing in his own language supposed to be part of my background? Is the ballet dancer in his female tights and cricket box supposed to be part of my heritage, the heritage of my constituents or of the average person in Britain?
People say that such performances should take place. If they are important enough to be preserved, why do people not want to pay the full price? We are told that the arts are special, but nobody has told me why that is so, or why the commercial theatre is thought to be so ordinary. Commercial entertainment is thought by arts lovers to be ordinary, yet theatres are full. Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals are packed to the doors. The difference between them and the 96 per cent. of subsidised theatres that the Opposition mentioned is that people are prepared to pay the full commercial price to see Webber's shows, while people who go to the ballet and the opera are subsidised.
Why does football have to meet the cost of crowd control while we provide survival grants for the arts? I keep asking what is the difference between the ordinary
1168
man in the street who wants to watch professional football, which to him is an art form, and the man who watches opera and ballet? What is so unusual or special about opera and the ballet? The opera recently survived at Earls Court and it has leading singers for about three of the different positions or whatever they are called. It survived because people going to it were asked to pay a price that was economically related to the cost of production. If that can be done and can enable opera to survive at Earls Court, why can it not be done at the Royal Opera House?
The arts subsidy is unnecessary because professionals earn their living and do not need to be subsidised. Subsidy harms the arts, because the Government want control and the performing bodies become institutionalised. Who needs a national theatre building? Are there not enough empty theatres around? It is bound to fail, because public accountability cannot be satisfied. Subsidy is a distortion because it perpetuates the status quo, while encouraging that which is unappealing and abstruse, and it stifles true creativity. It is politically inept and seen to be financially burdensome. Of course Gresham's law applies, which says that spending on the unnecessary drives out spending on the essential.
It is alienating most of the population and it is unpopular per se. It is expensive. Demand is by definition infinite and there are no agreed measures of value for money. It is misapplied because the target, if any, should be amateurs at local level, and training. I have some sympathy with the need to develop locally but none at all with subsidising at the national level. And of course it is completely incompatible with the generality of Government and Conservative philosophy. Avant garde usually means "'aven't a bean".
Heritage is something that I have not touched on before. When we talk about this issue we get pomposity, to say the least. I am sure that the great and good sitting around me at the moment will say that museums and art galleries are vital to the nation. Of course they are, provided that those who do not enjoy them subsidise those who do. What a good way to talk about essential needs to say that museums, art galleries, historic houses, churches and old theatre sites must be preserved for future generations. Yet, when Hereford cathedral tried to raise money to keep the Mappa Mundi—or Tuesday, or Wednesday, whatever it was—it could not be raised. The Church of England has pounds running out of its ears; why does it not itself fund the repair of churches and cathedrals? That is the question that we should be asking, but none of the great and good here bother to do so.
The Rose theatre is a thorn in the side of the Government—a sweet-smelling pile of bricks and rubble. Heritage addicts claim that the rubble must be preserved—provided the rest of us pay for its preservation. They have all been there on site—this well-known actor, that world-acclaimed actress, Sir Richard this, Sir Michael that, the has-beens, the "never-was's". Even the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was there, a man whose contribution to the arts is about the same as Bluebeard's contribution to the institution of marriage. As I understand it, the only VIP not there was Dr. Who with the Tardis.
I understand—although I am open to correction—that when all the people I have mentioned were at the site, a whip-round was suggested towards keeping the Rose theatre in being. All the millionaires who have made a

1169
fortune from the public sector got together and whipped up the miserly sum of £200—a major contribution to the effort to preserve the Rose theatre. Obviously, they did not want to devote too much of their millions to this, but they are quick to turn to the public purse when they think something should be done.
Last year the Government saved £450 million on housing benefit to reduce public expenditure. Then they gave £450 million to the art lovers to increase public expenditure. What nonsense! What a stupid way to spend Government money! The people in this country need many things; what they do not need is the subsidising of the arts.
I wrote to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asking why it was that the arts were the only area of public activity that had a three-year settlement. I asked why the same did not apply to education, the Health Service or local authorities, for example. I was told that the amount of money was only small and that security must be given to their arts friends over a three-year period. If there is one group in our society that does not need security of income and should not have any financial support at all, it is the arts group. We should he telling them that they must survive on their own income like everybody else and will certainly not get a Government subsidy.
The arts must be self-financing. There is nothing special about them. We must ensure that the Peter Halls of this world can never again make a fortune or get a gong because they have milked the public sector. Museums and art galleries must become cost-effective, and if people do not want to pay the full economic price, they will have to do something else about it. The heritage addicts must fund the full cost of restoration and preservation of such things as the Rose theatre. We cannot continue to fund the pleasures of a few art-loving trendies and other pompous twits who operate in the twilight world of Government subsidy while treating the old and the infirm so dreadfully.
The needs of my constituents reflect such things as housing benefit and increased old-age pensions. If I told them that they must contain their spending in line with inflation but if they want to go to the theatre they will get £60, they would give me a very peculiar look. They want money in their pockets. They are not concerned about the Rose theatre, the arts and ballet. They are concerned with living in a reasonable way, here and now.
6.34 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is quite an experience to follow Alf Garnett's vicar on earth—
Mr. Dicks: It is better than being a pompous twit.
Mr. Cormack: If ignorance is bliss, my hon. Friend must be an extremely happy man. What his constituents need most of all is a civilised Member of Parliament and perhaps one day they will get one.
On behalf of those of my hon. Friends who, like me, have travelled many hundreds of miles to be here today because of the elections, I think it is most unfortunate that this is such a short debate. There is no reason at all why it should not have been open-ended. We could then have gone on until 8 o'clock or 8.30 and every hon. Member could have had a chance to contribute. Those who arrange these things ought to feel rebuked because they have kept out of the debate a number of hon. Members who have extremely valuable contributions to make.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am responsible for the setting down of private business for 7 o'clock. I hope that he is not reproaching me.
Mr. Cormack: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the usual channels were responsible and obviously I withdraw any criticism of you. But it would have been possible to resume this debate after a certain time.
We are, I think, debating the arts and heritage jointly for the first time. It underlines a point that many of us have made for a very long time, that these two subjects should be taken together.
We have two admirable Ministers at the moment, my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, both of whom show that they have their hearts very much in the right place. But I hope that at some stage the Prime Minister or one of her successors will do as the Select Committee recommended in 1981 and create one Ministry which deals with the arts and heritage. With such a Ministry and with two Ministers such as we have today we would be even better served because the voice of the arts and heritage would be heard much more loudly and in higher places. That is no criticism of or reflection on the two Ministers.
We have spoken before about the Victoria and Albert museum. I was able to make a rather longer speech on another occasion on that. I am deeply disturbed that there is still a real crisis of morale in that great national institution. I am still in regular touch with members of the staff and I have seen Lord Armstrong. I impugn no one's integrity or good faith but it really is important that that crisis of confidence to which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred—I might say at inordinate length—this afternoon is resolved. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is keeping his eye on that.
I talked about the Mappa Mundi and cathedrals before Christmas and my hon. Friend will have a chance to refer to this matter when she replies. It is high time that the Government recognised that there is a responsibility for making a contribution towards the preservation of the fabric of these, our greatest national buildings. The cathedrals of this country constitute our most important single group of great buildings and it is most regrettable that they alone have no direct access to public funds. I am not advocating the French solution, where the fabric becomes the responsibility of the state. I am not suggesting that cathedrals should not make a proper contribution through appeals and other means. If they wish to charge I have no objection as a churchgoer and I believe that the Ely experiment works very well. Nevertheless, there is a real residual responsibility for the maintenance of these great and glorious buildings and it is time the Government faced up to that.
I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when she replies, to refer to the very real prolem that has been created because of the judgment of the Court of Referees concerning the Kings Cross Railways Bill. To say that English Heritage, which has been quoted with such approbation by the Secretary of State in the House today, has no standing, no locus, when it comes to appealing in the Kings Cross Railway Bill raises serious questions and it is important that the situation be corrected. I hope that

1171
the pledges given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in a debate not long ago will be quickly fulfilled.
We have already dealt with the Rose theatre, but another matter that is causing concern is the decision made last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that Mr. Palumbo's scheme should go ahead on the basis that the inspector said that it might be a masterpiece. Whether or not it is a masterpiece, it is clear that a number of important listed buildings and a medieval street pattern will be destroyed for ever. I hope, even at this late stage, there will be some further reflection on that.
Time and time again, when people talk about money for the arts and heritage, they say some extreme things. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was particularly scathing. Let us remember what the arts and heritage bring to this country. I read an article this morning which said that it has been calculated that the "Gold of the Pharaohs" exhibition in Edinburgh brought in £3·3 million to the city of Edinburgh because of the people who came specifically to see that exhibition. Indirectly, this seven-week exhibition brought in £6·5 million. The arts and heritage bring people in and raise money. They are not a drain on the public purse. Because there happens to be some public responsibility, it does not mean that the Government are being asked to pour money into unproductive effort. Even if one's view is purely economic and even if one is hard-headed to the point of being philistine, one has to recognise that there is a return on investment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply briefly to the points that I have made and I hope that she and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will continue, as I know that they have done, indefatigably to hammer on the Treasury door, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) put it so eloquently.
6.43 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and those hon. Members who were not able to make a speech. We should stop meeting like this, every five years on a European election day, to discuss arts and heritage. It is the intention of the impending Labour Government to include both arts and heritage in a single Ministry.
I am sorry that the unreconstructed hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has left the Chamber. He has probably gone to vandalise a few paintings somewhere. He is to the arts what Vlad the Impaler was to origami. He gives us a laugh, and all he needs is a pig's bladder on a stick to complete his costume.
I shall devote most of my speech to the heritage because this year archaeologists in London have unearthed two priceless gems, the Roman baths complex at Huggin Hill and the Rose theatre. They have also laid bare the appalling lack of protection under existing laws for sites of archaeological influence. The campaigns surrounding Huggin Hill and the Rose have had a partial success in that neither will be totally destroyed, which was the original intention of their respective developers. However, in the case of the Roman baths, access has been lost, as tonnes of
1172
sand have now reburied what one senior archaeologist has described as one of the best preserved and most extensive Roman baths complexes in northern Europe.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister about the Rose theatre, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Any Government truly wedded to the positive promotion of arts and the heritage would have scheduled the Rose theatre site under the relevant Act. How can the Government allow a speculative office block, an excrescence, to be built over the Rose theatre site? The adapted plans put forward to date are wholly unacceptable and I have two questions for the Minister. First, why were the museum of London archaeologists moved off site by English Heritage? Is it because English Heritage felt that the museum of London staff would stand too much by their principles and that English Heritage was in a better position to do a cosy deal with Imry Merchant, the developers? Secondly, why are the excavations of the pile sites going ahead before planning permission has been given by Southwark council or before a possible judicial review has been held?
The facts surrounding the Roman site at Huggin Hill present an unbelievable combination of ineptitude, confusion and vacillation. The facts show clearly that within the span of a few months a Roman site nearly 2,000 years old, described in September 1988 as of "national importance" by English Heritage, was, by February 1989, facing total destruction. It is difficult to exonerate English Heritage from a charge of gross incompetence. One can only assume that, since it is a quango headed up by Thatcherist nominees, advice is given on the basis of what it is believed that political masters want, rather than on what archaeology needs.
No other country in Europe would have allowed its archaeological heritage to be treated in such a shameful and purblind fashion as the Government have treated these two important sites. If property developers were interested in anything other than short-term profits, they might realise that heritage can serve mammon and the muse. The political and media campaigns might have secured a partial victory at Huggin Hill and the Rose, but no one can seriously believe that this piecemeal approach to the preservation of archaeological sites is either efficient or acceptable. The next significant site might be uncovered outside of easy walking distance of London and the press offices. What chance then of salvation?
We can and must learn a number of lessons from recent events. English Heritage as it is organised is incapable of properly serving the interests of archaeological preservation. It is too obviously in the pockets of Ministers and there is no serious money in those pockets for archaeology. We need a wholly independent commission, equipped with legislative teeth and a budget, substantially larger than the miserable £7·2 million, allocated for archaeological investigation and recording. Secondly, the 1986 voluntary code of practice between the British Property Federation and the Standing Conference of Archaeological Managers is highly unsatisfactory. The code is an agreement struck between unequals. It places archaeologists in the position of supplicants, relying almost entirely on the good will of property developers—a group not noted for altruism and selflessness.
The Minister for the Arts said that big business gives millions of pounds a year for archaeological restoration

1173
and rescue work. Such sums are pocket change in comparison with the profits made by city developers, and small compensation for the destruction being inflicted on archaeological remains in London and elsewhere. A voluntary code is no substitute for statutory regulations backed up by fines and gaol sentences for those who demolish first and try to avoid awkward questions afterwards. I support the call made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others that any developer wanting to develop in an area of archaeological significance as determined by part II of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 should be required to carry out at his own expense a full survey before preliminary planning consent is given.
We want to make sure that part II of that Act is immediately extended to the City of London as it has been to the town centres of York, Chester, Hereford, Exeter and Canterbury. It is ironic that the 1979 Act, which was carried through by the Labour Government, started off as a private Member's Bill introduced by the chairman of the Tory party, who is also the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which Huggin Hill Roman baths are located. As far as I am aware, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has not yet found the time to visit the site, nor has he publicly commented on it. One can only assume that the failure to bring the City within part II of the 1979 Act owes much to the cosy relations between Guildhall and the property developers allied to the pusillanimous attitude of English Heritage.
We have to do more for our archaeological heritage. The sign erected over the Rose theatre site reads, "Revealing today's heritage, building tomorrow's". When will it be realised that ugly and short-lived speculative office blocks are no more an acceptable replacement for the past than they are a worthy legacy for the future? The arts and heritage are not safe in the hands of the Government, driven as they are by the do-it-on-the-cheap approach to the arts required by probably the most philistine Prime Minister since the days of Lord Liverpool. It is hardly the mark of a truly civilised society to provide funds galore for defence and then to make the arts rely more and more on the begging bowl and on the good will of big business and the whims of rich men.
We can have no finer role in the world than to become a nation where the artistic skills and creativity of our people are given the maximum encouragement, a nation of craftsmen and craftswomen, painters, writers, poets and sculptors—a Mount Olympus of artistic creativity and excellence. What a prospect. What a vision we can offer the British people. Instead, we are all too often regarded these days as a nation of lager louts with the values of market spivs. I look forward to the vision of a new society, but I know that it will not become a reality until we have a Socialist Government. We shall have a separate Arts Department that will be under the guidance and control of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised a range of important and interesting issues during the debate that has reflected the importance that we all attach to our heritage and the
1174
strength of passion that it can generate. I only feel sad, with others, that so many of my hon. Friends who have been in their places throughout the debate, and who had knowledgeable and detailed contributions to make, have not been able to participate in the debate. To have a debate during which the Chairmen of two Select Committees are able to present their views to the House is, in itself, a mark of distinction.
No arts or heritage debate would be the same without the particularly distinctive contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). He is good at helping us to keep the subject in perspective.
I shall say little about the contribution of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I thought that he was mean-spirited not to recognise the remarkable contribution that has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is universally respected and admired. He has done so much to develop and promote business sponsorship of the arts. His efforts have led to a 39 per cent. increase in real terms in arts funding since 1979. My tributes are as nothing compared with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who in a particularly lucid contribution made only too clear the standing, quality and diversity of British art and the arts generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and I normally debate more toxic subjects than the topic of our debate today. My hon. Friend raised a number of detailed matters that I should like to take the opportunity of writing to him about. English Heritage, our adviser, whose work we greatly trust and value, has made significant strides forward since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which is chaired by my hon. Friend. There are further matters, however, that I would appreciate discussing with my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred interestingly to the link between tourism and heritage. I do not take the view that tourism is a form of pollution. My hon. Friend had some important comments to make about the way tourism can be channelled and handled. We have direct responsibility for the royal parks and palaces and we are making strides forward in trying to ensure that the interpretation, handling and management of such magnificent palaces are to the highest standard, especially as we move forward to the establishment of an agency. English Heritage, with its properties in care, is working hard to ensure that the best practices are used and deployed. Its chairman, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has made a special contribution in that area of work.
Various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), have referred to the funding of cathedrals. The debate on the future of the Mappa Mundi has generated great interest and has caused the issue to be reconsidered. There is no statutory provision preventing English Heritage or the national heritage memorial fund giving grants to cathedrals. It is entirely for them to determine their priorities in the allocation of their funds. If, in future, English Heritage and the Church of England decide that some measure of assistance should be made available to cathedrals and that additional funds from Government are

1175
necessary for the purpose, we would give full consideration to that view. It has always been the view that grant-in-aid should be left for parish churches because they are less well placed to raise money on their own behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) made a special reference to the British Army band. If some of us did not realise that it is a vital part of our national heritage, I am sure that coexistence with my hon. Friend in this place has taught us all to mend our ways. My hon. Friend has a special and close interest in Hampton Court and in Bushy park. He and I have had discussions about the magnificent chestnut avenue. I am able to give him an absolute assurance that the trees are being fully examined and that no tree in the avenue will be removed unless it is a clear danger to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) talked about the English National Ballet and international ballet. I give him the assurance that his concern is shared and that discussions are taking place with the London boroughs to determine how best to meet the concern.
I have not strayed into the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I think that they were contentious and provocative, save that he spoke at some length about the Victoria and Albert museum. The developments there are making good progress and there is a clear commitment to improving the quality of the museum. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will be replying in more detail to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South.
Many hon. Members have talked about the developments at the Rose theatre. We have already had a statement about the theatre. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has spoken about Huggin Hill on many occasions. We believe that a constructive solution has been achieved for the Rose. I wish to pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to secure its preservation. The developer of the site in which it was discovered, Imry Merchant, has co-operated in the pursuit of a practical and sensible scheme for preserving the remains of the theatre underneath the new building. It will be possible to prepare the site for public display when the construction works are complete. It is outrageous for Opposition Members to seek to denigrate what by any definition is a significant achievement. The developer has committed itself to providing £10 million in resources towards preserving a wonderful site. It is essential when seeking to secure archaeological remains that effective and realistic proposals are brought forward. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who seeks frequently to interrupt when this issue is discussed, makes it only too clear that he thinks that the answer to every problem is to write cheques so long as someone else signs them.
The fragile remains of the Rose theatre are not now under threat. The developers propose to preserve them without piling through them. The redesigned scheme allows public access. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment sought when he called for a month's delay on 15 May, and that is what the developers now propose. There were previously about 11
1176
piles that potentially might damage the site, and all of these are to be removed to the outer perimeter of the theatre.
Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Bottomley: I will not.
Much has been achieved. There has been great interest in scheduling, but, as my right hon. Friend informed the House earlier, we do not propose to take that course at this stage. The detailed reason is set out in the letter to the solicitors for the Rose theatre campaign, a copy of which is in the Library.
There is no suggestion that there is any substance in the allegations made by Opposition Members. This is a good and achievable solution. It means that sites will be preserved and fragile ruins protected. The remains of the Rose theatre are already in a vulnerable state as they have been subjected to the elements. That is why English Heritage has worked so hard to secure their preservation and protection. It is essential now that people work together to look to the way forward. They should not seek constantly for means of conflict and confrontation. Instead, they should look for means of co-operation to find ways to ensure that the site—together with the many other sites which commemorate Shakespeare in the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—is given proper protection.
I hope that the actors who have done so much will not let the curtain fall now. I hope that in years to come they will continue to come back and participate and give us the benefit of their performances as that site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey becomes what all of us hope it will be, an area in which many of us can commemorate the magnificent Shakespearean legacy which has always been so important to our British heritage.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the order [19 June].

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)
As amended, considered.
To be read the Third time.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is promoted by Cleveland county council, of which my constituency forms part. Its purpose is to remove the statutory obligation on that council to provide for the Tees-Newport bridge to be raised whenever a vessel wishes to pass beneath it.

1177
The bridge was opened in 1934 and has a central roadway span which can be lifted vertically by approximately 100 ft in the space of two minutes or less. The machinery and other equipment required to facilitate the raising of the bridge is very expensive to maintain and given the fact that the bridge has not had to be raised for a commercial vessel since 1984, and is unlikely to be raised again, the financial burden imposed on the county council is considerable and can no longer by justified. If the statutory obligation to raise the bridge can be repealed, the council estimates that it will save approximately £1 million over the next 10 years.
I assure the House that, even with the bridge in its lowered position, there is approximately 6 m clearance for vessels at high water. That compares with a clearance of 5 m for the Victoria bridge up river at Stockton and a minimum clearance of 5·5 m for the proposed new road bridge which would be constructed if and when the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill is enacted. I commend this Bill unreservedly to the House.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
7.3 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move, That the Bill he now read the Third time.
The Bill is promoted by the Tyne and Wear passenger transport executive which operates the Tyne and Wear metro system. I have been asked to move this Third Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) who is the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and who cannot carry out this important task because of his position. However, he has been most helpful in ensuring that the Bill has reached this stage.
The Bill will extend the metro system from the present terminus of the Bank foot branch to the Newcastle international airport. As well as serving the airport, the extension will provide park and ride facilities with a bus interchange which will increase the use of the metro system and reduce traffic congestion in Newcastle.
1178
Since its opening a decade ago, the metro system has been most successful in meeting the transport requirements of the area and has contributed to the revitalisation of the local economy. This metro extension is essential to local and regional communications in the north-east and will provide the missing link between our air bridge to Europe and other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas, and a modern urban rail network serving the area directly and via connections at Newcastle Central station with British Rail's local and InterCity networks. The creation of the single European market and the opening of the Channel tunnel both emphasise the need for the highest possible quality of transport for our region.
As vice-chairman of the northern group of Labour Members, it gives me considerable pride to move this Third Reading, which I commend to the House.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Isle of Wight Bill (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

  Football Spectators Bill
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I beg to ask leave to present a petition to the House on behalf of my constituents and Nottingham Forest football club and the Nottingham Forest football club's supporters' association. There are 8,500 signatures on the petition which begs the Government to think again about the Football Spectators Bill and the requirement to carry identity cards to gain entry to football matches.
  My supporters who have signed the petition believe that the identity cards Bill is complicated, costly and bureaucratic. They therefore pray that this House will think very carefully before proceeding with the Third Reading of that Bill in the House of Lords.
  To lie upon the Table.

Dangerous Dogs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
7.5 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in a debate on the Adjournment of the House. I stress at the outset that I do not mean this debate to be a re-run of last night's debate. This debate will focus on a problem which was not at the centre of last night's debate—the threat that dangerous dogs and dangerous breeds of dog pose to human safety in this country today.
I readily acknowledge that we are dealing with what can only be a relatively small section of the dog population. The vast majority of dogs are properly looked after and present no real problems, but that in no way diminishes the importance of this subject. Many people, including children, have been seriously savaged and mauled—some have even been killed—by dogs of dangerous breeds. The House must do whatever is practical, reasonable and responsible to try to reduce the danger of such attacks to an absolute minimum.
We must first try to understand the nature of the problem. I do not believe that Ministers have yet been able to do that. We must consider the problem of guard dogs, which are now being kept as domestic pets. The Minister wrote to me recently estimating that there are as many as 500,000 such dogs in homes across the country. Under the Guard Dogs Act 1975, any guard dog used to protect premises must be under the control of a trained handler at all times or it should be tied up. Any failure to comply with that requirement is an offence which is punishable in law, but no such requirement applies to the 500,000 guard dogs being kept as domestic pets.
I wrote to the Library research department asking for the legal position in respect of dogs kept as domestic pets in Scotland. I received a long answer, which was summed up as follows:
"In plain language, what this all means is that dogs are classified as domesticated animals and are therefore not regarded as being inherently dangerous. In normal circumstances, the owner or keeper is expected … to ensure that the dog is kept under proper control, but no more than that. It is only if the dog is known to be dangerous either to people or to other animals that the owner is strictly liable to keep it under control at all times."
I assume that that means that the owner is strictly liable in the same way that owners of guard dogs are strictly liable under the Guard Dogs Act 1975.
I do not believe that that is right. It cannot be right that guard dogs such as rottweilers, pit bull terriers or bull mastiffs should be regarded as so dangerous as to require strict control at all times, but are then considered to be so innocuous at home as to require only the same kind of reasonable care as is necessary for a poodle or a pekinese. In that respect, the law is completely inconsistent and indefensible. The law must be tightened up to take account of the inherently dangerous nature of a number of the new guard dog breeds that increasingly are being brought into this country and kept as pets.
I am not alone in being concerned about the danger posed to human safety by certain breeds of dog rather than by individual dogs that the courts have defined as dangerous because of incidents in which they were
1180
involved. The Daily Record, Scotland's national news-paper, has been running a very effective campaign calling for tighter control of some of the new breeds of dogs. In a special edition on 1 June the Daily Record said:
"Today, we list five breeds—named by RSPCA experts—which are potential killers. Danger is deliberately bred into them. And people buy them precisely because they are ferocious, naturally aggressive and frightening—to others."
The dogs to which the Daily Record referred were rottweilers, American pit bull terriers, doberman pinschers, German shepherd dogs and Neapolitan mastiffs. It is not just a question of a campaign in a paper such as the Daily Record drawing our attention to particular breeds of dogs that it believes to be inherently dangerous and that the RSPCA's own experts believe to be inherently dangerous.
The publication Dog World—which is very pro-dog—commented on the incident that led to the death of my own constituent, 11-year-old Kellie Lynch. On 21 April it wrote:
"there are a number of general points which have to be made. Firstly, young children, however mature and apparently responsible, should never be left alone with any breed other than the most docile, and especially not with the big guarding breeds. Ninety-nine per cent. of the time there will be no problem, but the consequence of an unforeseeable accident are so appalling that the risk, however well trained the dog is, is not worth taking."
The article then went on to deal with children being allowed to take dogs for walks. It said:
"Again, the dogs themselves may appear well-tempered, but it needs only for them to be distracted by, for example, another dog running free, then things can go terribly wrong … And it is asking for trouble to take out two dogs at a time … The dogs may not be intentionally violent; it only needs the child to trip and fall over for the dog's attitude to it to change immediately."
That description—by people whom, I assume, know what they are talking about and who know what are the characteristics of big guard dogs—is quite chilling. I regard such phrases as
"the consequences of unforeseeable accidents are so appalling"
and
"it needs only for them to be distracted … then things can go terribly wrong"
and
"it only needs the child to trip and fall over for the dog's attitude to it to change immediately"
as making an unassailable case for the Government to take steps to restrict the ownership of potentially lethal dogs of that kind. However, Ministers have made it absolutely clear that they are prepared to allow a completely free and unrestricted market in the ownership of dogs which have an awesome potential for creating havoc and injury among the population at large.
It is not just the rottweiler breed, which has received so much attention recently, that is a problem. There is the new phenomenon of the American pit bull terrier. That breed of dog is now beginning to appear in this country. According to one television report earlier this week, American pit bull terriers have killed 16 people in the United States of America in just two and a half years. Is that the kind of tragedy that the Minister wants to be repeated in this country, or does he intend to do something about it?
In the same edition of the Daily Record on 1 June Mr. Martin Sinnatt, the secretary of the Kennel Club, which is

1181
no opponent of dogs in general, issued the following chilling warning to anyone thinking about owning a rottweiler. He said:
"It's like buying a gun without realising that it might go off one day."
He referred then to the American pit bull terrier, and said that the Kennel Club is now
"advising members not to deal with or own them. There is encouragement of the fighting characteristics of this dog by some people. In view of this, we have ruled that no recognition should be accorded to it under any circumstances and that activities involving such dogs should be actively discouraged."
We have to assume that the Kennel Club knows what it is talking about. When it advises its members to have nothing to do with the American pit bull terrier, it really is beyond me that the Government have consistently refused to try to bring the growth in the ownership of American pit bull terriers under control.
When I first raised this matter in the period immediately following the incident in which young Kellie Lynch was killed, the Leader of the House told me that
"there has long been legislation to control dangerous dogs, and remedies are available once it is clear that a particular dog is dangerous."
He was referring to dogs that have been proven by the courts to be dangerous—dogs that have already attacked human beings and savaged or possibly killed them. When dogs have attacked human beings, the law can get tough. The Leader of the House then said:
"We are therefore not contemplating legislation to control a particular breed or type of dog. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend."
By "right hon. Friend" the Leader of the House meant the Home Secretary.
The matter was referred to the Home Secretary, who considered the position in the light of what had happened in Dunoon to my constituent. His answer was published yesterday in the form of a written answer. He simply confirmed the position that had been taken by the Leader of the House on 18 April. Having considered the problem for some time, the Home Secretary agreed with the Leader of the House that the penalties for individual dogs which have been proven to be dangerous would be toughened up. By that time it is too late to get tough with the dog. By then it has already created mayhem and attacked people. The Home Secretary went on to say that no action would be taken to control the ownership or the handling of increasingly fierce breeds of dogs which are now becoming more and more fashionable.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is not a new problem. Of course it is not a new problem. It can be traced back to alsatians, the German shepherd dogs first introduced into this country in the aftermath of the first world war. There are fashions in dogs as there are fashions in everything else that people own. At one time it was alsatians. They have now gone out of fashion. For a while, the alsatian was overtaken by the doberman pinscher, but that breed has now become unfashionable and has given way to the rottweiler. The rottweiler will eventually become unfashionable and give way to another breed of dog—the American pit bull terrier. And who knows what the next might be? There have already been advertisements in this country for animals described as wolf hybrids—they are 75 per cent. wolf—which can be openly bought on the market without any restriction. In America people are free to own pure wolves. Is that the direction in which the Minister suggests that we should go?
1182
Should we allow a completely unrestricted market to develop? Should we allow the unrestricted ownership of any kind of lethal and potentially dangerous animal? I hope that that is not the position. Something will have to be done. The Government's response so far has not been good enough. A growing body of informed opinion is calling for the Government to introduce checks arid controls over a problem that is now fast accelerating out of control.
The League for the Introduction of Canine Control publishes newsletters. In newsletter No. 27 it referred to a programme on BBC Radio 4—"Face the Facts"—on 23 February. It said:
"the growth of one-man backstreet breeder trainers and thriving businesses selling large guard dogs; these 'security dogs' or 'attacker dogs' sell at £1,000 or more to anyone who can pay. One firm offers already trained Dobermanns, German Shepherds, 15 stone Rottweilers and also Pit-Bull terriers which are bred to bring down even a horse and 'not to give up till it's dead.' The danger of ordinary people owning such dogs is obvious and as Police Inspector Alan Clarke of Keston, said, 'a trained dog is as dangerous as a loaded gun'."
We should compare what was said in that BBC Radio 4 programme about individuals in back streets selling dogs of that kind, which present a lethal threat to other people in society, at high prices with what the Leader of the House said about the sale of such dogs. He said that the breeding of dogs for commercial sale is already controlled by legislation, but that legislation does not necessarily apply to back street sales. He added:
"We do not think it sensible to try to extend these controls to private individuals who wish to sell the offspring of pets."—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 182.]
Is the Minister saying that it is not sensible to bring under control the kind of situation reported in "Face the Facts" and that he sanctions any individual selling American pit hull terriers regardless of the consequences? If so, that is totally unreasonable, and it is time that the Government took action.
It is not just the occasional radio programme, RSPCA inspector's report, or Daily Record survey that adds to the chorus of demand for Government action. Even people associated with some of the breeds involved, such as rottweilers, are themselves concerned. In a recent article in Dog World, rottweiler breeder Mary MacPhail stressed the need to socialise and train them, to enable them to fit into society. She commented:
"Breeders must realise that they have a special responsibility to screen rigorously in order to ensure the proper placement of puppies in homes with owners who are able to understand their character and who have the time and inclination to train and exercise them."
The people who know rottweilers best acknowledge that not just anyone can own such dogs but only those who understand the responsibilities involved and who can ensure that their dogs live safely among us.
On the Saturday after my constituent was killed, the Exchange and Mart carried 20 advertisements for rottweillers. Only two suggested that ownership involved any special responsibility. The others said, in effect, "If you have the money, come along and we will hand one of these dogs over to you." Nothing done by the Government so far begins to confront the accelerating ownership of potentially dangerous dogs by people who cannot look after them responsibly. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will act only when dogs get out of control. Steps should be taken before that happens to prevent pain and suffering being inflicted on totally innocent people.

1183
Recently, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would establish a review committee to consider what could be done to bring the situation under control. He replied that he considers that there is no need for such a body. Perhaps the Minister will explain tonight why there is no need for a professional body to make recommendations to Parliament in respect of a dramatically changing situation. A host of ideas exists for the Government to explore, but that should not be done behind closed doors, between Ministers and civil servants. Those ideas should also be explored openly by public representatives so that they can be properly tested in the public arena.
One proposal, promoted by the RSPCA, is for a compulsory third party insurance scheme covering all dog owners, involving only a small premium for ordinary dogs and domestic pets of the kind that the majority of people own, but higher premiums in respect of rottweilers, alsatians and doberman pinschers, which might discourage casual ownership of certain breeds. Last night, the Secretary of State for the Environment ruled out a national registration scheme, but demand for one will not go away and eventually the Government will have to concede. Meanwhile, they should consider whether specific breeds ought to be subject to a special licence which only certain people would be allowed to hold. The Home Secretary could also consider whether certain breeds should be muzzled in public. Strict regulations should also apply to breeders to catch back-street sales by people knowing nothing about potentially dangerous dogs to others who know even less. Sales of dogs such as rottweilers should also be restricted to one per owner. If the Home Secretary reads about the history of rottweilers, he will learn that they are pack dogs, so if the leader turns on an individual, the others will follow.
The Home Secretary already imposes a requirement on local authorities to license the owners of kestrels or buzzards. Special permission is required to build an aviary for those breeds and to keep them in built-up areas. Yet, there is no restriction on owning a Neapolitan mastiff or a rottweiler, even though they pose a far greater threat to public safety than kestrels or buzzards.
My constituents Mr. and Mrs. Lynch are so concerned that they are organising a national petition to be presented to the Prime Minister. They wrote to the right hon. Lady asking whether she would receive the petition personally. One appreciates that the Prime Minister cannot accept every petition, but she replied that it could certainly be presented at No. 10. Her letter stated, in relation to the Lynch tragedy, that
"if it were possible to prevent such an incident from ever occurring again simply by changing the law, I would not hesitate."
It may not be possible to prevent a similar incident, but steps can be taken to minimise the risk. It is incumbent on Ministers to encourage an open and comprehensive debate on methods of bringing the situation under control. Dog registration is a difficult subject, but there should be informed discussion and positive action.
7.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I fully understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has chosen to raise the subject of dogs tonight.
1184
The whole country was shocked by the attack that two rottweiler dogs made on Kellie Lynch on 14 April. She lived in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to take back to her parents the sympathy of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already written to express her sympathy to Kellie's mother and grandmother.
My right hon. Friend asked for a review of legislation relating to dangerous dogs within a very short time of learning of Kellie's death. That review was quickly conducted, and the hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement yesterday as to his conclusions, to which I shall refer shortly.
First, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's points concerning the Guard Dogs Act 1975, because he may be under a slight misapprehension as to that statute's nature and purpose. That Act is primarily aimed at the use of guard dogs on commercial premises. It specifically excludes farms and domestic dwellings and is framed in terms of the function of the dog rather than, for example, the breed of the dog.
The Act is concerned solely with working dogs that are carrying out the functions of a "guard dog": that is, a dog being used to protect premises, property or, in very narrowly defined circumstances, a person. The Act ensures that those dogs are securely held. It does not control dogs while they are being kept as family pets.
Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to explain the difference. Does he accept that there is an increasing fashion, particularly in inner cities such as London and peripheral estates in Scotland where people fear burglary and attack because of the lack of law and order, for keeping dogs specifically to guard their houses and themselves? In those circumstances, would the Guard Dogs Act apply to those dogs?
Mr. Hogg: It is a matter of interpretation. It might be of assistance to the House if I were to go through the Act at some length. That would enable the hon. Gentleman to form a view.
The primary section of the Guard Dogs Act is section 1. It might be helpful if I refresh the memory of the House as to the terms of that section. Section 1(1) of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 provides:
"A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ("the handler") who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises."
Section 1(2) continues:
"The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except—(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or (b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises."
Subsection (3) provides:
"A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog in any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises."
It is important to bear in mind that a guard dog has a narrow definition for the purposes of the Act. That definition is to be found in section 7:
"'Guard dog' means a dog which is being used to protect

(a) premises; or

(b) property kept on the premises; or

(c) person guarding the premises or such property;".

1185
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Guard Dogs Act would apply to a dog which is used to guard domestic premises. That is a matter of interpretation, but my initial response—I do not pretend that I am expressing more than a layman's view—is that it could do. If a person was using a dog for any of the purposes set out in the interpretation section of the Act, it might well be that, notwithstanding the fact that the premises being guarded were domestic rather than commercial, the dog would be a guard dog for the purposes of the Act. Ultimately, that is a matter for the courts. I can only give a not particularly well informed view, but that is my view. It is a matter for the House to reflect upon, and it may be that the Guard Dogs Act 1975 would apply.
Mr. McAllion: I realise that neither the Minister nor myself is a legal expert, but is the Minister seriously suggesting that the 500,000 guard dog types which are being kept as domestic pets should be individually tested through the courts to see whether they come under the auspices of the Guard Dogs Act 1975? That is not a realistic proposition.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does me a considerable injustice. I was not suggesting that the matter should be adjudicated in the instance of every single dog which might or might not be a guard dog. That is not the question. The question is whether any old dog is capable of being a guard dog when being used as a guard dog for the purposes of guarding domestic premises.
The answer to that question, at first blush, is yes. If a dog is being used to guard premises that fall within the scope of the 1975 Act—and that does not appear to be confined to commercial premises, subject to what I have already said regarding the interpretation of section 1(1)—it is possible that the dog is a guard dog. But that is subject to one important proviso, which is that the Act expressly excludes farms and domestic dwellings. That proviso limits the scope and the application of section 1, so I ought to modify the opinion that I have previously expressed.
The Act would not apply to most flats, which are clearly domestic premises. It would depend on the flat and on the circumstances in each case. The Act would not apply to domestic premises, and flats arc domestic premises, but it might apply to other premises.
As I have said, the Act is concerned solely with working dogs that are carrying out the functions of a "guard dog": that is, a dog being used to protect premises, property or, in very narrowly defined circumstances, a person. The Act ensures that those dogs are securely held. It does not control dogs while they are being kept as family pets.
Pausing to make a point which must be self-evident, any dog is capable of being a guard dog. I suppose a pekinese is capable of being a guard dog. I had an extremely attractive Welsh springer spaniel, not the kind of dog that one would contemplate as a guard dog, yet he performed most admirably in that role, whereas my rather nice black labrador, which looks formidable, is probably not the kind of dog that one would choose as a guard dog. The definition of a guard dog has nothing to do with the breed but relates to the function that is being performed by the dog at the relevant time.
I foresee many difficulties in following the path which the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is a very great difficulty in defining a guard dog once one has departed
1186
from the simple definition used in the Guard Dogs Act, which I have endeavoured to summarise. The Act is not concerned with breeds or type of dog.
Breeds and types of dog have no status in law. The reasons for that are probably self-evident. The evidential problems are great, and cross-breeds are extremely difficult to define and identify. In any case, the evidence of the last few weeks and the tragic attacks which have occurred suggest that dogs of a whole variety of breeds can be dangerous.
We have seen attacks by rottweilers, dobermans and alsatians. We must bear in mind that many alsatians are used as guide dogs. However, I must come back to the fact that spaniels, of which I am particularly fond, are sometimes rather vicious animals. I had a pleasant Welsh springer spaniel of which I was very fond. However, that does not alter the fact that, from time to time, he could be extremely vicious. I am ashamed to say that on one occasion he caught a postman. Worst of all are the Jacks—Jack Russells. My father has had many Jack Russells and they have all been nasty. One Jack Russell—I forget its name—bit my mother three times. The last time was its last bite because it was put down. My point is that Jack Russells can be nasty. My daughter had the misfortune to be caught by another Jack Russell and her face was rather badly bitten.
So there are problems with dogs of all kinds. One must not suppose that the problems are confined to the big and obviously dangerous dogs. I had the misfortune to be bitten twice last year by the same dog on the same evening. It was not a rottweiler, a doberman or an alsatian but a bad-tempered old cross-breed which probably had some terrier and some labrador in it. That dog was very disagreeable. It was guarding a garage. It bit me when I got out of the car and when I went to the garage mechanic's back door, it bit me again. Therefore, one cannot define dangerous dogs by any definition known to the law. Indeed, it was difficult to recognise that dog. One could speculate as to its breed, but one could do no more than that. It certainly could not have been defined in law.
We have to face the fact that there have been attacks by terriers, collies and mongrels and that such attacks are very commonplace. We do not know how many occur. I have heard estimates of 250,000 a year—about 700 a day—or even 1 million a year: nobody really knows. Most dogs present no risk at all. I do not think that there is anything to be gained by trying to define dangerous breeds.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister is missing my point. I am not suggesting that we can define comprehensively what constitutes a dangerous dog. Some dogs will always be dangerous. I am suggesting that some breeds, which have become much more common in recent years, present an entirely different degree of threat to human safety. I do riot believe that a Jack Russell is capable of bringing down a horse and killing it but an American pit bull terrier is. Is the Minister seriously arguing that the American pit bull terrier is not a qualitatively more dangerous and different type of dog from the dogs we traditionally have in this country?
Mr. Hogg: I shall finish my point about the Guard Dogs Act 1975 and then I shall deal specifically with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, because they require serious and considered attention.

1187
There is another problem with the restricted nature of the Guard Dogs Act. It applies only at the premises on which the dog is held and used. A guard dog outside those premises ceases to be a guard dog within the meaning of the Act. It is a guard dog only when it is employed in that capacity. It is for that reason and the others I have outlined that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's ingenious solution is the right one.
The hon. Gentleman made two suggestions that are capable of sitting together or of being seen as alternative approaches. His first proposition was that certain classes of dog can be identified and prohibited. His second proposition is that one could set up a licensing system whereby some individuals are authorised to possess dogs which are deemed to be dangerous and some are not. Those two separate propositions need attention, and I shall deal with both.
The hon. Gentleman's first proposition, that some dogs can be defined and prohibited, does not run, for a variety of reasons. Who will determine and by what criteria whether dogs are so dangerous that they should be prohibited? One could say that Parliament should do that, but somebody would have to advise Parliament. What does one do about changing dogs? One of the facts of life which people do not like to remember is that all dogs are man-made; they are no longer natural. If we were to pass a prohibition order on, for example, the American pit bull terrier, it would not be long before somebody developed a dog which had all the characteristics of an American pit bull terrier but which was something different. Therefore, we would have to have an extraordinarily precise and quickly responding system for identifying and translating into the prohibited classes dogs which are manufactured—I make no apology for using that word.
There is another problem associated with the policy of prohibition. What does one do about cross-breeds and half breeds? One might take the view that a dog with one American pit bull terrier parent is an American pit bull terrier, but there would be many problems of identification. Would it be defined by temperament or appearance? What would happen if one parent was an American pit bull terrier and the other was a Newfoundland? At what point would the definitional test bite—if I may put it that way? Should a dog that is one quarter American pit bull terrier fall within the prohibited category?
Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister suggesting that, because it is possible to cross-breed the terrier, he is happy to allow into the country dogs with a record of killing 16 people in two and a half years? Is he prepared to tolerate that simply because it might be difficult to define that dog? It would he possible to say that any American pit bull terrier or any dog sired by an American pit hull terrier should be prohibited in this country.
Mr. Hogg: I am against nonsense. I am trying to explain why the hon. Gentleman's proposition is manifest nonsense. It sounds splendid to say that one should prohibit the American pit bull terrier. Standing by itself, that proposition has appeal. However, when one begins to examine it, one sees that it is nonsense. When does an American pit bull terrier cease to be an American pit bull
1188
terrier? A dog with one American pit bull terrier parent is partly an American pit bull terrier. However, would it fit that definition for the purposes of the prohibition orders?
Mr. McAllion: It might.
Mr. Hogg: Of course it might, but we have to have a legal system that is capable of identifying and prohibiting an animal and enforcing the law against it.
Mr. McAllion: A national registration system.
Mr. Hogg: That is a different point. I shall deal with registration if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. It might be a good thing if I did.
But just for the moment let us focus on the question of the half American pit bull terrier. Is it an American pit bull terrier for the purposes of a prohibition order? What happens if a parent mated with a particularly docile breed of dog, so that the puppy had no aggressive characteristics? Is it then an American pit bull terrier? What happens if it has but one eighth in it? Is it an American pit bull terrier? The hon. Gentleman must work such points out before he commends the prohibition order to the House.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister must realise that it is not justifiable to sit back and do nothing because it is difficult to do everything. Just because it is difficult to identify cross-breeds does not mean that pure bred American pit bull terriers should not be prohibited. It may not solve the problem entirely, but it would be a significant step towards solving it, and it may save a number of lives in Britain. Is that not worth trying for?
Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course it is worth trying for. As I shall explain to the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought forward a range of proposals which will do quite a lot and upon which I hope the House will legislate in due course. But we must not pass nonsense simply because we have a problem. Problems must be confronted in a sensible and rational way, not in a silly way. I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman—I rather think that I have—that the idea of simply prohibiting an American pit bull terrier is a non-runner.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister has in no way persuaded me that to prohibit one breed of dog is a non-runner. It may not be possible to prohibit every dog in the country with a strain of that breed in it, but it is possible to prohibit the pure breed itself. I am suggesting that, although it would not solve the problem entirely, it may be of some significance and it may save the occasional life, and for that reason it would be worth trying.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has just explained clearly why such a prohibition would be rubbish. He said it may not be possible to prohibit the cross-breed; it may be possible only to prohibit the pure breed. At that point, no pure breed will be imported, only cross-breeds, which are not caught by the prohibition. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will have achieved a prohibition which applies only to pure breeds and has no relevance to cross-breeds simply because cross-breeds are not capable of definition in law. That is the problem.
Let me embark upon a consideration of the other interesting argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman:that we should set up some licensing system which would enable somebody—I shall explore who in a

1189
moment—to give or to deny specific individuals the right to own certain classes of dog. That is another proposition to which the hon. Gentleman referred obliquely, which, on occasion, has been canvassed publicly by others.
Let us contemplate what is being discussed. First, let us come back to the old question of, which dog? Presumably the licensing system will not apply to all dogs. Or are we to have a licensing system that applies to all dogs, so that a person has to go to somebody before he can buy a pekinese? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is recommending that. Therefore, we start from the proposition that the licensing scheme which the hon. Gentleman is considering applies only to some classes of dogs. What classes? We are back to where we started. What is to be done about cross-breeds, half-breeds and quarter-breeds? The answer is that dogs cannot be defined in such a way that they are capable of identification in statutory terms. If the parentage is altered to some degree, a different animal will be created. Therefore, that approach is clearly unsustainable.
The next question—although one does not need to deal with it because the premise is unsound—is, who will be responsible for the licensing? I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell me that the overworked police force should he responsible for licensing. Goodness knows how many hundreds of thousands of people would apply to possess a variety of dogs—for example, alsatians, dobermans, collies or mongrels. Who will grant the licence? Will it be the police, the local authority, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your spare time? Those are the kinds of questions that one must ask oneself before advancing such a policy.
What about the criteria? Let us assume that dogs to which the licensing procedures apply can be defined and that somehow some long-suffering village constable can be prevailed upon to issue licences in his village. What standards is he to apply? Are they to have regard to the comfort of the dog or the comfort of the house where the dog is to live, to the character of the owner or to the purpose of use?
Mr. McAllion: One of the criteria to which they could have regard would he whether the owner was capable of keeping the dog in a safe pen or stockade at night, and if he was not capable of providing such a facility, he would be denied the right to own that dog. The Minister is arguing for completely free and unrestricted ownership of any kind of animal. Is he suggesting that, because a wolf hybrid is a cross-breed, he would encourage people to own them and use them in public in Britain?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has once again demonstrated why the proposition will not run. He has suggested that one criterion—not the only one—should be the ability of the dog's owner, or its prospective owner, to keep the dog in secure circumstances at night. That means that the licensing authority, whoever that might be, will have to go along at night, or some other convenient time, to see the accommodation, to look at the fences and see how secure they are, what the locks are like, where the dog will be, and what will happen when the owners go out for a drink at the pub.
We heard yesterday that there were about 7·5 million dogs.
Mr. McAllion: That was an estimate.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman fairly reminds me that it was an estimate. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to extend the licensing system to all 7·5 million dogs, but let us assume that he wants to extend it to, say, half.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister is being offensive in the light manner in which he is dealing with this serious subject. If he had listened to my contribution to begin with, which most of the time he did not, he would have heard me say that RSPCA experts had defined five breeds of dogs which are particularly dangerous and to which such a system could apply.
Mr. Hogg: The RSPCA is not the final arbiter on the matter. If we are to have a licensing authority and a licensing system, it must be just and the House must decide to which dogs it applies. We would probably all agree that it should apply to a rottweiler. We are told that there are between 90,000 and 180,000 of those. We would probably agree that is should apply to dobermans. I suspect that people would probably urge us to apply it to alsatians. If I judge correctly, there are several hundred thousand of those. I am sure that a Staffordshire bull terrier would be caught in the net. I remember that my housemaster at school had a particularly beastly one called a hog dog; it was an extremely fierce animal which certainly could not be excluded from the licensing system. Many other dogs would have to be subject to control if one went down that road.
One cannot say that control would apply to three or four well known breeds, because that would not rub. One must enlarge the category for licensing so that a lot of dogs are caught by it; otherwise, it is not reasonable. Once one has gone down that road, one is faced with an absurdity because one is regulating the possession of certainly hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of creatures. One simply cannot impose on any central authority the burden of that type of licensing role.
You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that last year I had the responsibility of dealing with firearms. That was a serious issue and we had to consider whether it was possible for the local constabulary to carry out proper inquiries into the ownership and safe keeping of, for example, large-magazine self-loading shotguns. Many people told me that we were putting an impossible burden on to the police. I never accepted that, but it was said by many, including Opposition Members. If it was considered impossible to have control over a few tens of thousands of shotguns, surely we are talking about a total impossibility in respect of the many hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, of dogs that fall into the category we are currently discussing.
Mr. McAllion: It would not necessarily be the police who were given this responsibility. Many hon. Members have been trying to press the Government to establish a properly funded registration scheme. That would mean that dog wardens could be employed by local authorities to take on the responsibility for operating the system.
Mr. Hogg: I am perfectly prepared to contemplate that possibility. Last night, the hon. Gentleman commended to us a dog registration scheme, but let us consider what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
What he is proposing as a possibility is that a clog warden employed under the scheme should have the responsibility to determine whether particular individuals

1191
should or should not have the right to own a particular class of dog. All right, but what kind of person will be employed as a dog warden? To whom is that dog warden to be accountable? Would most people want to have their right to possess a particular animal determined by the kind of person who is likely to be employed as a dog warden? That is a serious question to ask.
We would have to have an appeal system, because, once one decides to refuse someone the right to have a dog, one must set up an appeal system. After all, that is what we do in the case of firearms. You will bear in mind from your intimate knowledge of the firearms system, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, when one is refused a section 1 certificate, or in certain circumstances a shotgun certificate, one has the right to go to the Crown court to appeal. One could not do less in respect of a person who had been refused ownership of a dog. That person would have to have the right to appeal to the Crown court, with all the paraphernalia that that would entail.
Mr. McAllion: I referred to this, but obviously the Minister was not listening. Local authorities already have the right to refuse to let someone keep a kestrel in a built-up area. That person, however, can appeal to the elected members of the authority. There would be no need for anyone to go to the Crown court or anything else. If we had a properly run, effective dog warden scheme at local authority level with funds provided by a proper licensing system, none of this would be a problem.
Mr. Hogg: Come, come. If a person was denied the right by a dog warden to possess a dog, that could hardly he the final decision. One could hardly allow a dog warden, whoever that person may be, to have the final say-so as to whether another individual should possess a dog.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister has totally missed the point. This House would lay down the guidelines that dog wardens would be asked to apply locally. The House would set down the criteria that would have to be met before someone could own a dog. It would not be the decision of the dog warden, but the decision of the House, after a proper informed debate, as to what criteria could be applied. I plead with the Minister to get this matter sorted out in the open rather than in an obscure Adjournment debate when no one is here.
Mr. Hogg: A most bizarre proposition is coming from the Labour party. It is suggested that we should lay down a code of practice, or at least guidance, for the instruction of a dog warden, who would then be able to interpret that guidance or code of practice as he thought fit, without being subject to any external intervention. That is a form of tyranny.
Mr. McAllion: No, it is not.
Mr. Hogg: Of course it is. If one allows some official—I regret to say that he is unlikely to be highly paid or particularly well qualified—to interpret a range of rules without a right to appeal, one has set up a tyranny.
Mr. McAllion: That is absolute nonsense. The Minister is blethering a load of rubbish. The Minister knows that local authorities undertake a series of activities, and if individuals feel that they have been in any way tyrannised by any local authority official, they can appeal to the
1192
ombudsman system for justice. That prevents such tyranny, and the same could apply in relation to dogs. There is no question of tyranny.
Mr. Hogg: We are now getting rather close to the true voice of Socialism. In this connection, some official, probably not a senior official, should have the right, without any appeal or redress, to tell ordinary people that they can or cannot possess a dog. If one does it in respect of dogs, why not do it in respect of everything else? One could decide that certain people should not have a car or that someone should not have a firearm because Mr. Bloggins down at the county council thinks they should not. Once one starts to look at that proposition slowly and carefully, one sees that it is rubbish. The proposition that the hon. Gentleman must grasp is that if one gives to a dog warden the ability to refuse or grant a licence, that must be the subject of some appeal mechanism.
Mr. McAllion: Various mechanisms could be applied short of going to the highest court in the land to sustain an appeal. The Minister is talking nonsense. Yesterday, the Home Secretary said that he would take the power to ban certain individuals from having the right to own a dog. The same applies to people's right to own a car if people have shown that they are not capable of accepting the responsibility of that ownership. The Minister is defending the right of individuals to own whatever animal they want, but what about the rights of parents? Surely they have the right to know that their children are safe when they play in the parks. Does the Minister want to give them certain rights—for example, the right to life?
Mr. Hogg: Of course, and I shall tell the House of the propositions that the Home Secretary has in mind. First, however, we must dispose of the nonsense that we have heard tonight. Incidentally, I do not want to rub it in, but the Crown court is not the highest court in the land. It is the court that is frequently used for the purpose of appeals in circumstances such as this. That is why I selected it. It is the court, for example, that deals with appeals in the case of firearms, with which there is an analogy. Under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, a person must establish a good reason to possess a rifle or pistol. If the certificate is not issued, that person has the right to appeal to the Crown court. That bears a close analogy to what we are discussing now.
We are contemplating a dog warden, not a police constable I note—the hon. Gentleman does not want to involve the police, but dog wardens, whoever they may be for that purpose—granting licences. The least the hon. Gentleman could do is to accept that there should be a proper right of appeal. I hasten to add, however, that I am reasonably content that the appeal should be to the justices. For the purposes of consistency of approach I was referring to the Crown court, but I am perfectly willing to use the justices.
The most difficult issue that faces the hon. Gentleman is the number of dog wardens who must be employed. He and I remember the debates of last night about the cost of a registration scheme. I remember one figure, given at about 2.30 in the morning, of a one-off payment of £60 to £65 in respect of each dog registered. The other approach was an annual charge of £15, again in respect of each dog registered.

1193
However, that assumed that the sole function of dog wardens would be to collect strays. If, as we are told, one of the important functions of a dog warden would be the licensing of the many thousands—probably tens of thousands—of eligible dogs within the area of that district council, we will not be talking about one warden, 50 wardens or even 300 wardens; we will be talking about needing thousands of dog wardens, especiallyif they have to work at night looking at the safe-keeping arrangements that the applicants are proposing to put in place.
Mr. McAllion: There would be no need for thousands of wardens. My suggestion was simply a possibility. The licensing committees of the local authorities could decide whether such licences should be issued, just as they decide about other licences for other purposes. There are millions of cars in this country, but we do not need thousands of wardens to check whether everyone has a licence. There are ways of making sure that a licence system operates effectively without involving thousands of wardens.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister or his civil servants to come up with something along those lines. They should be looking at that. I am simply suggesting that the Government should acknowledge that further action is required. They must look closely at how they can bring the ownership of such dogs under some control, because if they do not, other people will be killed.
Mr. Hogg: I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman's approach to this matter is to put up a suggestion and then, when I have knocked it down and destroyed it, to say, "I didn't mean that. Perhaps something else could be thought up." Then we go through the same procedure all over again. That approach is nonsense.
Mr. McAllion rose—
Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment with the issue of dog wardens.
About 1,000 dog wardens could be needed in the south Keston district area, especially if they have to visit the home of every applicant. Let us be generous and say 500. In that instance, we would certainly not be talking about £60 in respect of each dog as a one-off charge or about £15 per year. We would be talking about hundreds of pounds.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister is setting up coconuts on stalls just to knock them down. Nobody is suggesting anything of the kind. The Minister has no evidence or data to sustain his argument. He is simply saying that if he says it, it must be the case and that the argument follows from that and that is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is the Minister responsible for something that is causing a lot of pain and suffering to people outside this House. He should get rid of the flippant attitude that he has shown throughout this debate and start to tackle the problem seriously. He should stop setting up Aunt Sallies just to knock them down and talk about what he can do to bring the problem under control.
Mr. Hogg: I have simply been responding to points made by the hon. Gentleman. I never suggested, in the first instance, that dog wardens should be the licensing authority. That was the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Similarly, it was his suggestion that there should be a licensing authority. The hon. Gentleman has made a proposition, and I have had the courtesy to examine it. He must not blame me for making the status of dog wardens
1194
an essential part of the debate when he raised that point in the first place. I should never have been so silly as to think of that idea.
The hon. Gentleman thought that there was an analogy between cars and dogs and that these licences could be granted on the nod. However, the hon. Gentleman has forgotten two things. First, one has to pass a test to have a car. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be tests for the ownership of certain classes of dogs?
Mr. McAllion: The Minister has argued throughout on the basis that there will be tests for the ownership of some dogs. Deciding whether the applicant meets the criteria is in itself a kind of test. Although the Minister has made that assumption throughout, he is now treating it as if it were a revolutionary idea that has just been thought up. The Minister is not suggesting that, because we have tests for cars, we need thousands of instructors in every city. The people who carry out the tests are small in number, but they seem to cope.
Mr. Hogg: Let us look at the criteria. Car tests comprise a test in skill in driving. There are not all that many driving test applicants each year. However, we are talking about potentially 2 million to 3 million dogs being the subject of the licensing and about somebody having to apply and monitor the criteria and then having to grant a licence.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister is assuming that there will be between 2 million and 3 million dogs. My only suggestion was that made by the RSPCA's experts, who identified five specific breeds. The Minister is spreading the argument beyond those five breeds simply for the convenience of his own argument and so that he can produce a figure of between 2 and 3 million dogs. Neither the Minister nor I knows what the number is because nobody in this country knows the true number of dogs. However, whatever the number, the initial licensing process will occur only once.
This issue should be examined in detail and not be the subject of a flippant exchange between the Minister and myself. There should be expert committees. However, when I asked the Home Secretary whether he would set up such a committee to consider the problems and the suggestions, he said that he did not see any need for it. Why does the Minister think that there is not a need to examine these things in detail, and why does he treat them as a matter for light debate in this place?
Mr. Hogg: I am not treating these issues lightly. I am responding to specific suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the RSPCA has identified a number of breeds, but it has certainly not identified all the dangerous breeds, and it has not even begun to address the question of cross-breeds or quarter-breeds, because it cannot.
Is the hon. Gentleman considering a one-off licensing system or an annual licensing system? In the nature of things, people's circumstances and conditions change. Would a person who moves house have to apply for a new licence? The hon. Gentleman has himself told us that one important criterion—indeed, the only one that he mentioned—is the ability of an applicant to keep his or her animal securely at night. The ability of a person to do so will clearly depend on the conditions in which he or she is living. When someone moves house, those conditions change, so would a further application be necessary?
Mr. McAllion: Why does the Minister always find a reason or excuse for taking no action in this matter when, in relation to the poll tax, for which local authorities will find thousands of people's circumstances changing every week, local authorities are expected not only to register the changes but to send out notices to the individuals concerned about those changes in their circumstances? I have discovered today that, in Tayside region, 5,000 changes will be made to the poll tax register every week. If the Minister does not find that a problem, why does he think that there will be a problem with notifying changes in a system for trying to keep dangerous breeds of dogs under control?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made two points. I am not commending that we do nothing; I am commending—as I shall outline when the hon. Gentleman permits me to do so—that we do what the Home Secretary says that we should do. My right hon. Friend has made his statement in a written answer.
There is no analogy between what the hon. Gentleman has been forced to consider—an annual licensing system for dogs—and the community charge. Of course, when somebody moves house, they notify their change of address to the authorities. That is the beginning and the end of it. However, in the context of the licensing scheme that the hon. Gentleman is considering for a number of dogs that are incapable of definition, the criteria have to be re-examined when the change of address occurs, because the applicant's circumstances then become different. If one moves from, for example, a house in rural Lincolnshire to the middle of Grantham, one's circumstances change. Although one could very well keep a range of big dogs in rural Lincolnshire, that might not be possible in the centre of Grantham in a block of flats.
The point that I am putting to the hon. Gentleman, and which he is so unwilling to grasp, is that under his scheme, when there is a change of circumstances, an inquiry would have to be made about the ability of the applicant, whose circumstances had changed, securely to house the dog at night in those new circumstances. What happens if the authority decides that the applicant cannot house the dog securely at night in those new circumstances? Is it to be put down? I wonder what the RSPCA would have to say about that.
Mr. McAllion: I am not speaking on behalf of the RSPCA; I am simply trying to press the Minister to take some sort of action to control a problem that is becoming ever more dangerous. His alternative is to do nothing—to let dogs be kept by entirely unsuitable owners who do not keep them under control but let them loose in the community, putting others at risk. That is not good enough.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman was here last night, and I assume that he reads Hansard—
Mr. McAllion: I was here until 2.45 this morning, but I have been in Dundee since then to vote and to make sure that Mr. James Provan is not re-elected as Conservative MEP.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is rather confused. I understand that: most members of the Labour party are normally fairly confused. The hon. Gentleman is merely confused in particular, whereas they are confused in general. That, however, is not an excuse for not
1196
remembering what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said at some length last night, what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday in a parliamentary answer and what—when the hon. Gentleman permits me—I am going to say this evening.
The intellectual quality of the hon. Gentleman's stance—I trust that I am putting this gently and courteously—is not terribly appealing. He is really saying that it is better to do nonsense than to do nothing. When driven into a corner he admits, at least implicitly, that what he has been saying is nonsense. When pressed on a specific point, he will say, "I did not really mean that; I had something rather different in mind."
Let us move on to what I suggest should be done. We should consider with some care how we are to control dangerous dogs. A number of statutes provide protection against dogs: I shall deal primarily with England and Wales, because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not answer for Scotland, and Scottish legislation in this regard is different.
In England and Wales there are three primary statutes. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 makes it an offence to have an unmuzzled ferocious dog at large—that is, off a lead—in a street, park or open place in most urban areas. Thus, if a dog is ferocious and does not have a muzzle, its owner commits a criminal offence, for which the penalty is a fine of up to £400.
Let me pause there to make a serious point. I think that it is at least possible that some classes of dog would be deemed by the courts to be ferocious without the necessity to prove any particular propensity to violence in a particular dog. I suggest—this is just an idea, not a legal opinion—that in the case of the American pit bull terrier, which was pure-bred and manifested all the characteristics of that breed, the court might be prepared to treat it as a ferocious animal even if there was no evidence that that animal had threatened or injured anyone. The 1847 Act, where it applies—which is primarily in urban areas—may be a remedy that is already available in respect of the dog to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
Obviously, if a rottweiler had threatened or injured a person, it would then become a ferocious animal for the purposes of the 1847 Act. I do not think that a rottweiler per se—that is, without proof of some previous injury or propensity to injure—would be treated as a ferocious animal, but once there was some reason to think that it was dangerous or likely to injure someone it would, I think, become one.
Mr. McAllion: Why should there be a distinction between a rottweiler and an American pit bull terrier?
Mr. Hogg: The reasons for the distinction are those that the hon. Gentleman has himself advanced in his many interesting interventions. I think that an American pit bull terrier is essentially a fighting dog, bred for that purpose. No one would say that that was true of a rottweiler: rottweilers are guard dogs.
I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Council of Docked Breeds recently, one of whom was the secretary or chairman of the Rottweiler Society. There are 90,000, and although some may be fierce and clearly are, it would be wrong to regard the majority of the breed in that way. That is probably not true of the American pit hull terrier, although it is probably fair to say that the

1197
majority of that breed have a propensity to violence, which might well classify them as ferocious animals within the meaning of the 1847 Act. It is at least quite likely that the 1847 Act would prohibit someone from keeping unmuzzled in a public place an American pit hull terrier—or, for that matter, any dog that could be properly regarded as ferocious by reason either of its breed or its past record or present circumstances.
Allowing a ferocious dog off the lead without a muzzle is a serious matter which I do not think that people fully appreciate. They should know that the courts already have powers to deal with them severely. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in Scotland, similar powers exist—although expressed in a more modern form—in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Civil liability in respect of injury or damage caused by dogs in Scotland is regulated by the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987. In England and Wales it is regulated by the Animals Act 1971, which provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage that it causes if he knew that the animal was likely to cause such damage or injury if unrestrained. The two Acts allow those who have been attacked and injured to claim damages.
It will, of course, depend on proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant, and that knowledge flows from the defendant's knowledge of a particular dog and of the way that it is likely to respond in specific circumstances. I fully appreciate that no amount of compensation could make good the loss of the daughter of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but those Acts apply in a number of cases of injury.
I wish, however, to focus on a third piece of legislation, which is of critical importance. It is legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is hoping that the House will amend, preferably soon. I refer to the Dogs Act 1871, which applies throughout Great Britain. Under that Act, anyone can complain to a court—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that the Minister will not refer to future legislation in an Adjournment debate. I was a little concerned about that: I am listening very carefully.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that indication. With your permission, I have it in mind to outline not very detailed proposals of the legislative kind but broad trends of policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the Minister will not do that. That would be in breach of our Standing Orders, and I could not allow him to do that.
Mr. Hogg: May we see how far I can go, Madam Deputy Speaker? I should like to give an indication of what we have in mind, without in any way breaching the rules of order. Perhaps we can inch along on this matter, and you will tell me if I have gone too far.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to all that has been said throughout the debate and I shall continue to do that. The Minister can rest assured that I will call him to order immediately he gets close to the mark.
Mr. Hogg: You are, as ever, most gracious in these matters, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do my best not to go too far.
1198
Let us examine the foundations of the statute. The principal legislation is the Dogs Act 1871. Under that measure, anyone can complain to a court that a dog is dangerous, or simply report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that the dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it can make an order for the dog to be controlled or destroyed. So far so good, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is descriptive only of the present legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is the future that I am concerned with.
Mr. Hogg: I, too, am concerned with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope that we can proceed in a state of accord.
As the House knows, the Home Secretary has decided that the powers available to the court on a complaint under the Dogs Act should perhaps be extended and the penalties enhanced. That is a general statement of intent. The problem is that, as the Act stands, if a dog is to be destroyed, that must be carried out by the owner, who may decline to carry out the order. The only penalty currently available for that is a fine off £1 a day. In 1871, that fine was considerable. It is manifestly not considerable today.
One could take the view that that was a gap in the law. The Home Secretary is also minded to think that it is a gap in the law and, speaking generally and without, as it were, expressing a precise view on how the legislation should be changed, one way to deal with such a problem might be to give the court power to designate a third party as the person to carry out the destruction order.
Thus it would be possible under such an approach—not that I am proposing legislation on this occasion—for a court to designate, say, an officer of police to carry out the destruction order. That would avoid the problem that can arise under the present legislation. If one were to adopt that approach, it would ensure that dogs which needed to be put down were put down.
I have mentioned that the fine is a problem. There is clearly a case for the House to consider whether we should change the law to a degree so that failure to comply with an order to control a dog or hand it over to be destroyed should be an offence carrying a significant penalty, certainly a penalty greater than £1 a day. A figure that might occur to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be a fine of up to level 3 in the standard scale, which is £400. That is a thought that might occur to the House in considering possible approaches to legislation of this kind. If one wanted to do that, a penalty under the 1871 Act would make prosecution under the Act more worth while and greatly enhance the enforcement of the Act.
There is another possibility which I think would attract the hon. Member for Dundee, East. It is that there is no power under the 1871 Act for the court to prohibit a person from owning a dog in future for a specified period. Plainly, where there has been a finding under section 2 of the 1871 Act, there is a case for saying that a court should have the additional power to make an order disqualifying an owner from having custody of a dog for such a period as the court thinks fit. One would need to refer to the parliamentary answer by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see exactly what he had in mind, because I must not say in the course of the debate what he had in mind. If that is what he had in mind, it would be a

1199
completely new power under the Act. Its effect would be to ensure that dangerous dogs which are not or cannot be controlled are destroyed.
Owners who failed to observe an order of the court would receive a substantial fine and the court would have the additional ability to ban such a person from having custody of a dog. If at some stage the House gave the court the ability to ban a person from possessing a dog in future, the House would have to consider what penalties should be imposed in the event of the person failing to comply with the disqualification order. I propose no legislation, because I am not permitted to do so. However, the House might well think that a level 5 penalty, which is presently set at a maximum of £2,000, might be appropriate.
Somebody who refuses to comply with an order to control his dog or hand it over for destruction may be banned. It follows that anybody who tries in such circumstances to resist the operation of the Act would, if the court so decided, become liable for the £2,000 fine or whatever the level 5 fine might be at the time. That would be a considerable extension of the court's powers under the 1871 Act.
In future, the House might well consider giving to the courts the power to ban somebody from possessing a dog, and it might also give the court a power to designate a third party to carry out a destruction order. The House might well decide that it wanted to increase the fine for findings under section 2 of the 1871 Act to a scale 3 fine. If the House decided on such a course of action it would undoubtedly constitute an important enhancement of the legislative powers that are available. If the House wanted to make the changes that I have contemplated in respect of the Dogs Act 1871, there would be a similar desire for a change in the legislation in Scotland. I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would wish to see that, and no doubt other hon. Members would also like to see it.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the whole House would come to the view that the simple and effective changes to the Dogs Act that I have contemplated would be an appropriate response to the problem. I hope that, if this approach proves attractive to the hon. Member for Dundee, East and to the House, changes could be implemented as speedily as the House can manage. It would be good if a suitable legislative opportunity could be found to give the House an opportunity to contemplate the kind of changes that I have envisaged.
I cannot pretend to the House that the tragic circumstances which have brought about the debate and which helped to bring about our view of the dog legislation can be prevented by changes in legislation, however sweeping. If there is one lesson to be learned from our review of the legislation in England and Wales it is that the responsibility for the control of dogs rests much more on their owners than upon the framework of law.
The House can take legislative steps to control dogs, like anything else, but the effectiveness of those steps in practice depends very largely on how people respond to their responsibilities. It is therefore important to ensure that any legislative changes which we make this time are measured, sensible and well aimed. That is why I was quarrelling with the hon. Gentleman. It is not that I think
1200
that this matter is unimportant; it is that I am concerned that we should introduce only changes which are viable and not pomote changes which are simply unsustainable.
Mr. McAllion: What I fail to understand is that the Minister qualified many of the other suggestions that have been made by people outside the House as unviable, and particularly suggested that the prohibition of certain species was unviable because of the cross-breed problem. How does that apply to the suggestion that American pit bull terriers should be muzzled in public? How does that come into the problem of the cross-breeds in that respect?
Mr. Hogg: This is a slightly different point. If one is to have a prohibition order, one has in statutory terms to define the dog to which that order applies. For the purpose of an importation prohibition order, or for that matter a possession prohibition order, one cannot define the dog other than by reference to breed. One cannot simply say that everybody is prohibited from possessing a ferocious dog. One can say that, when a ferocious dog is kept in particular circumstances, an offence is committed. One cannot say that no ferocious dog shall be imported into the United Kingdom, because that is an unenforceable piece of legislation. One can say that Latin American pit bull terriers cannot be imported into the United Kingdom.
I do not want to go back to what I was doing previously with regard to the hon. Gentleman, but what is an American pit bull terrier? That is a serious question. Obviously, a pure-bred American pit bull terrier is an American pit bull terrier, but what about a half-breed or a cross-breed? How does one recognise a dog which has in it a sufficient quantity of Amerian pit bull terrier genes to give it the characteristics of an American pit bull terrier but also has different parentage? It loses the definitional character, and therefore the prohibition cannot operate because it is nonsense if one focuses on breeds.
It is the point about the 1847 Act that is troubling the hon. Gentleman. That Act provides in effect that where one has a ferocious animal one has to do certain things: for example, keep it on a leash and keep a muzzle on it. The question is: what is a ferocious animal? That is not a definitional question; that is a question of fact.
I think it is possible, although I do not express a definite view on this, that the courts would be prepared to say that an American pit bull terrier, having regard to its pedigree and essential characteristics, was per se a ferocious animal. I do not think that such a finding would be applied to many dogs, but it might be applied to an American pit bull terrier.
With that exception, one has to apply the test in the context of any dog that is capable of falling within it. Any dog is capable of being ferocious. Therefore, under the 1847 Act, I think it is true that a very small number of a breed may per se be ferocious, otherwise one is looking at the characteristics of the particular dog in respect of which the summons is issued.
If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on it he will see why, on the one hand, it is impossible to prohibit possession and importation by way of breed, while on the other it is possible to express the view that perhaps American pit bull terriers would per se fall within the 1847 legislation.
The point that I am making, therefore, is that it is essential that any legislative changes we make should be measured, sensible and well aimed. They must also, incidentally, command the support of the public and not

1201
act against the large numbers of dog owners whose animals present no nuisance and therefore no threat. We think that the kind of changes—not going into detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is sailing very close to the wind.
Mr. Hogg: I know, but fortunately I am tacking, so I am not getting that close.
We think that the proposals which my right hon. Friend outlined yesterday meet these criteria. Courts are familiar with the 1871 Act, and it may well be that the House will wish to give the courts the powers and discretion that they require. I recommend that approach to the House. Those who have a dog which is uncontrolled and has become dangerous, whether it be a rottweiler, a doberman, an alsatian, a terrier or the indefinable mongrel that bit me twice last year, should be in no doubt that they will be dealt with by the courts. In such circumstances their dog could be destroyed and they could be banned from owning another.
I very much hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will feel that this is the proper way forward.

Itinerants
8.46 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone): I am very grateful to have the opportunity to raise in the House tonight the subject of the control of itinerants as it is one of major importance not only to my own constituents but to the constituents of many hon. Members. It comes up time and time again in the House.
I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being available to reply to this debate. I listened with increasing admiration to the very thorough and comprehensive reply which he gave to the previous debate. I am indeed most grateful to him that after such a magnificent coverage of just about every aspect of the dog problem he should now turn his attention so willingly and readily to a completely different problem. He will, I hope, not suffer from a feeling of déjà vu if I turn briefly to the subject of dogs later in this speech because, unbelievably, since it has come up so often in our deliberations this week, there are also considerable implications concerning the control of dogs and illegal acts connected with them in respect of itinerants.
In looking at the problem of gipsies I should like to look first at the existing state of legislation. I would not dream of proposing any changes to legislation or even of speculating on possible changes since I am quite sure that I could not tack as subtly as my hon. Friend the Minister. But existing legislation is extremely relevant because it is one of the sources of frustration on the part of law-abiding residents who see a situation in which one law appears to apply to the settled population and another to the itinerant population.
I am also fully aware that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to respond in any detail to some of the criticisms that I will make, not only of existing legislation but of the way that it is enforced, because this is more properly the concern of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But, although the Minister will not be able to respond to that part of my speech which strictly concerns planning legislation and enforcement, I hope that he will be able to pass on the concerns that I express to his right hon. Friend. I would ask him if he would deal with the points that I shall be raising on public order, which more nearly concern him.
The problems of public order and the problem of frustration among the law-abiding community would not arise at all if we had a proper system of planning and enforcement and a proper set of planning rules which would make it possible to control the itinerant population.
First, we have to look at the size of the problem. I have attended many debates in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the problem of those who choose an itinerant way of life or who settle for long periods in illegal encampments and move on only when obliged to do so, or for reasons of their own. A count of gipsy caravans was carried out by the environmental health officer in Maidstone—on whose behalf I am largely raising this thorny problem—in January, so it is already out of date. Even then, there were 14 unauthorised caravans in the borough, 11 of which were in my constituency. In all those cases, the borough council was, and is still, taking action to resolve the breach of control.

1203
There are in addition 35 caravans in authorised council-operated sites in the borough and 76 caravans on privately operated authorised sites.
Of those authorised council encampments, 21 are at the village of Marden, and a further 14 at Ulcombe. That is a large count for a geographically small constituency. Marden parish council is now updating its figures, together with other parish councils, with a view to being able to assess the problem more accurately. The recent outbreak of illegal encampments at Marden has caused considerable problems of enforcement and public order. Planning enforcement is a lengthy process. Before taking enforcement action, the local authority is encouraged by the Secretary of State to resolve the problem by negotiation or at least to invite planning applications to be submitted. If this does not resolve the problem, an enforcement notice can be issued. Not only is it a long time before the notices can be issued, but if an appeal is exercised, it can easily be several years before the notice becomes effective, even if the appeal is ultimately dismissed.
Residents at Marden will be told that it could be several years before enforcement can be carried out. If my hon. Friend the Minister were to visit Marden to see the incredible situation that has developed, he would not find it easy to say that it is just and right, even if it is normal legal practice, for it to take several years to rectify such a situation.
Stop notice procedure is available where a local planning authority feels that the normal time scale embodied in an enforcement action is unacceptable, but such a procedure is not permissible or applicable in connection with a caravan that is used solely as a place of residence. The normal problems of enforcement action are compounded when dealing with gipsies, simply because Government advice is quite clear: the gipsies who have resided in the local area should receive planning permission unless there are compelling planning objections. Normal policy objections to the development of the countryside that would be applied to non-gipsies are seldom sufficient to resist proposals for gipsy caravans. Parallel action under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 provides a more expeditious way to deal with the problem in that immediate prosecution for the stationing of the caravan without a site licence is possible, but it seldom provides an effective solution as magistrates will inevitably dismiss a case or impose a minimum fine pending resolution of the planning permission. The will of the police to interfere where there are public order problems at gipsy sites and the will of the magistrates to enforce planning procedures and impose the necessarily deterrent fines are minimal. Therefore, at least part of the planning problem spills over into the responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister.
In layman's language, the planning situation is simple. Anybody can encamp himself illegally on any available land. He can then, unbelievable though it is, get himself connected up to local services—electricity and water—and can have his rubbish collected. When the council then tries to evict him, it is faced with a lengthy process of inordinate delay. As a result, resentment builds up in the law-abiding community and this is much intensified where there is
1204
continued and blatant bad behaviour, lawlessness and acts of public disorder by the itinerants. In the village of Marden, some of my constituents have been assaulted.
We have a rather romantic view of gipsies. We think of people travelling in a painted caravan, telling fortunes and selling heather. The reality of the people encamped illegally is that they do not use their caravans purely for residential purposes. They are also carrying out a trade, quite often an illegal one, in the area surrounding the encampment. Breaking up of metal, tinkers' business and other such trades are frequently practised. They all cause a great deal of mess, particularly where there are no proper arrangements for disposal of sewage from the caravans or proper rubbish disposal. There is no proper arrangement for disposal of trade waste, which builds up and is extremely detrimental to the environment, particularly to a beautiful part of Kent.
Even where they are not directly responsible for assaults on the population, the behaviour of itinerants is a problem. Dogs and cats regularly disappear from nearby areas to these encampments. My distinguished predecessor, Sir John Wells, lost a pair of much-loved and valuable dogs about a year ago. They were not discovered by the police, who are alleged not to have shown a great deal of interest, nor by any official of the local council calling in to check up on planning procedures, because they do not do much of that. They were seen by a particularly alert constituent, who, walking past the encampment one day, noticed two dogs that were cleaner and fitter not only than the other dogs but the occupants. He decided that a discordant note was being struck and reported the matter to the police. I am pleased to say that the police took action and managed to restore the dogs to their owner. Others are not so lucky.
Thefts of caravans often occur when these people move in, and it is not difficult to make the connection. This causes a great deal of resentment and that is where the question of order and control arises. Itinerancy in our society appears to be rising and more and more designated sites are being made available. There are obviously considerable social arguments about allowing itinerancy to escalate to too great a scale. It is bad for the education of the children of itinerants, which is greatly disrupted. It is bad for good social order because, on the whole, itinerants are resented by the law-abiding population. It is bad for law enforcement, because these people are seen to be blatantly getting away with it, as it were. It is extremely bad in promoting civil obedience in terms of planning orders when it is obvious that one section of the population appears to be especially favourably treated and appears also to be immune from lawful procedures.
Nevertheless, itinerancy is growing, and as it grows so we are having problems of public order and control. We have assaults in Marden. We have assaults elsewhere. We have reported threats in Hunton. We have mess and blatant disregard of the law in Shenley Park. For how long does my hon. Friend the Minister expect the law-abiding and settled population to continue tolerating this behaviour without being led to feel that they must take the law into their own hands or that the law is letting them down so entirely badly that it is not worth obeying and that instead it is worth trying to find some way round it?
I have never yet heard of an illegal encampment being moved on swiftly and legally. The two actions do not go together. If an encampment is to be moved legally, the

1205
move will take years before it is completed. If it is to be moved swiftly, assuredly the pressure will not be legal. That is not a happy situation. Indeed, I believe it to be an extremely dangerous one, and one that could develop further. Meanwhile, even if my law-abiding constituents, and my extremely law-abiding villagers of Marden, are prepared patiently to wait for the law to sort out this problem, is it fair that they should have to do so? Surely it is time, even under the existing law, for us to find a way of controlling the menace before it becomes a greater one, when it will no longer be so easy to bring it within the laws that apply to the rest of civilised Britain.
9.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has made a powerful case for the position of her constituents in Marden. Essentially she has raised two matters. The first is the application of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. Secondly, she has raised the more general question of itinerants. I shall deal first with section 39. I think that it will be helpful if I summarise the legislation that is currently in place.
Broadly speaking, if a senior police officer present at the scene has reason to believe that two or more people have entered land as trespassers and are intending to reside there and that the occupier of the land has taken reasonable steps to ask them to leave, he may direct the trespassers to leave the land in any of the following circumstances: where damage has been caused to the property on the land, where the trespassers have used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier or his representative, or where—I suspect that this is commonplace in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend—12 or more vehicles have been brought on to the land. For the purposes of this part of the 1986 Act, a caravan is deemed to be a vehicle.
Section 39 was introduced into the 1986 legislation while it was passing through Parliament to provide criminal sanctions against a type of aggravated trespass that landowners suffered in the Stonehenge area at the time of the summer solstice. It has undoubtedly been used by the police when they have been dealing with gipsies. It was not intended to be used against gipsies, but if gipsies fall within the circumstances described in section 39 they can be dealt with under the Act. The Act provides the police with a power but it does not impose a duty. When we come to operational decisions, we are talking about the duties of the chief constable and those of his officers who are accountable to him.
If my hon. Friend's constituents believe that the provisions under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 are not being used in the way that she wishes them to be used, they should make representations to the chief
1206
constable for a more expeditious use of the powers that currently exist. We intend shortly to undertake a review of a number of sections of the Public Order Act 1986, including section 39, to evaluate how they are working. Inevitably we will consider the remarks which my hon. Friend has made so clearly in this debate. In essence, the legislation in place is sufficient to meet the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is troubled by the fact that the police officers concerned do not act sufficiently expeditiously. If she will forgive me saying this, that is an operational matter for the police in her county, rather than for the Home Office.
Miss Widdecombe: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The local police force has made excellent efforts and I in no way want to criticise it. However, the problems which occur happen on the spur of the moment. The police must then come back after some time to sort out exactly what has happened. It is not like a public order offence or a demonstration where there is a static situation. These are isolated incidents which are very difficult to police.
Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the difficulties. She is right. However, I must re-emphasise that there is a distinction between the function of the Home Office and that of the police. We are considering an operational policing matter which is not within the authority of the Home Office. Consequently my hon. Friend must make it plain to her local police officers—and knowing my hon. Friend I rather suspect that she has done this—and in particular to the chief constable, that the matter is a very serious social problem and that the present legislation is appropriate to be used in those circumstances and should be invoked expeditiously.
I accept the point that the policing consequences are difficult in the sense that the incidents are isolated and may give rise to public disorder problems. Therefore, the police face implementation problems. However, that does not alter the fact that it is essentially a policing problem. I am afraid that I do not think that I can usefully go much further than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has been very generous to me—quite unusually so perhaps. She recognises my shortcomings in the sense that the broader issues which could have been debated are more particularly matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. She has given me the opportunity, for which I am much indebted, to reply exclusively on section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that she does not think that I am discourteous when I say that she might feel that I would not bring a great deal of expert knowledge to bear on the rest of the points that she so helpfully raised. However, I promise that I will ensure that her comments about Marden and her constituents are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Madrid Summit
9.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In this Adjournment debate I want to raise the subject of the scrutiny of European Community business and the Madrid summit. It is a little ironic that I am raising this subject today of all days. The polling booths in the European elections are just about coming to the end of their day's business to elect to the European Parliament Members who will have an influence on legislation from the European Community.
This Parliament also has influence on such legislation through the Council of Ministers and the Ministers we send to Brussels to comment on the Commission's proposals and finally decide what those legislative proposals should be either through unanimity or by qualified majority. The debate is taking place at relatively short notice—only an hour or so. I thank the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for coming here at some personal inconvenience. I know that he will relay to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House my concerns that have arisen exactly today.
I regret very much the need for the debate. The Select Committee on European Legislation and other people have held discussions with the Lord President on the matter. However, in view of the Lord President's statement on next week's business, I was obliged to ask for a debate. I emphasise that I had the support of the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in my questions to the Lord President earlier today—also, I hope, when I raised the matter under Standing Order No. 20 and in this rare third Adjournment debate.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee had been considering the matter in some detail in the expectation that there would be a debate before the Madrid summit the week after next, particularly on the Delors report on economic and monetary union. I had been confident that after pressure from two Committees and the precedents that have been set there would be a debate before that very important meeting of the European Council. However, at approximately 3.45 this afternoon the Leader of the House said that there would not be a debate—that no business next week related to that particularly important meeting.
Parliament provides procedures such as Standing Order 20 and Adjournment debates for the raising of grievances. I have therefore used those procedures. They are, as it were, fire extinguishers or alarm bells that are used when other people light a fire. The Government have certainly lit a fire today, not perhaps by an act of commission but by an act of omission in not arranging for a debate to take place next week on this very important matter. Some eyebrows may be raised when the Chairman of a Select Committee says that he finds it necessary to use these procedures, but I am sure that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee will agree with what I hope is a measured comment: there was every expectation that such a debate would take place.
I notice that the Lord President of the Council has arrived. I was not necessarily expecting him to be here. He could have read what I intend to say. Nevertheless, in view of his presence, I have to thank him for coming and I hope that what I have to say to him will not be too unexpected. I know that he has certain considerations to bear in mind, but the considerations that I intend to put to him tonight
1208
relate to the Parliament of which he is the Leader and not necessarily to him in his role as Lord President of the Council. I have pointed out on many occasions in the past that I am not sure that the habit of successive Governments in combining those posts is the happiest of habits. Sometimes it means that the same person has to balance conflicting interests. In our democracy, although it is a matter of contention on some occasions, split interests or conflicting interests should be avoided as far as possible.
There are many points of view about the European Economic Community. There are different points of view about the merits of our membership of the EEC, about the conditions under which we joined it, about whether we joined it correctly, the holding of referendums, and all the rest. On one thing, however, there is absolute agreement: that this Parliament must play some part in EEC legislation. This country is subject by treaty to EEC legislation, particularly legislation that is brought about by a weighted majority vote, perhaps against the inclinations of any British Government or the House. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. There is no difference in principle between the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and myself.
How is that influence to be wielded? How should draft legislation be considered, and how will influence be exerted on those who will ultimately decide it? Those questions have echoed down the ages, from the 16th century and Simon de Montfort, and along the corridor between the other place and this House. At the heart of our country's democracy is the extent to which there shall be consultation prior to legislation.
In the Standing Order that gives my Committee its marching orders, the word that is used is "consideration". That provision is contained in a resolution passed by the House on 30 October 1980 after several years' consideration, which regularised the way in which it should operate. That is becoming increasingly important in the public gaze and in the media—and no doubt it will become increasingly important after the Madrid conference and with all that follows from it. Therefore, I shall read the resolution into the record:
"That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or

(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld;

and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 838.]
In general, the operation of that resolution is relatively smooth. The problems of timing are neither the making of the Government nor of the House. However, problems occasionally arise and administrative slips occur in the best-run offices. Usually they are recognised as such and are smoothed out.
However, I regret to say that—subject to any subsequent correspondence—the spirit of that resolution has been breached. I refer to the Government reply to the "First Special Report, Session 1983–84", HC 527, when the then Leader of the House wrote, on page xxv of HC 400:

1209
"It is the Government's practice that debates on European documents should be held as far in advance as is practicable of the expected adoption of the proposal concerned. It is desirable that this should be at the point when the voice of the House can be most influential. As a general rule, this will normally be early rather than late in the life of a proposal. The Committee rightly notes that the selection of an optimum time for debates is very much a matter of judgment. The Government fully accept the Committee's view that, when making this judgment, it should be the rule always to err on the side of an early debate, and Departments will be instructed accordingly."
I am glad that the Leader of the House reinforced that general sentiment in correspondence with the Committee.
In principle, there is no dissent from that general point. Therefore, the question must be asked whether there is any reason why the spirit of the resolution, and the spirit and terms of that letter and of a subsequent letter from the Leader of the House, should not apply to the particularly important document that will be tabled at the Madrid summit—the Delors report on European monetary union.
I wish for a moment to be a devil's advocate and express what I would say if I were the Lord President or the Economic Secretary. I would say that it is not yet a matter for legislation. It is a report about feasibility—a very important matter. On the other hand, that report suggests that future legislation and future treaty change will be possible. There may not be a decision on Monday, Tuesday or on Wednesday week, but there will certainly be consideration, conceivably in principle. I might also ask whether the document comes within the ambit of the strict legality of the wording of the resolution on 30 October. One could argue that it does not. But if we are concerned about the principle of consultation before legislation and before important meetings which we all know will take place, it surely must, bearing in mind the words of the former Leader of the House and the confirmation of at least the principle by the present Leader of the House in current circumstances.
I also sent a letter to the Leader of the House—which I do not think he was surprised to receive—saying that there must have been some specific decision not to have this debate. It was not a matter of forgetful omission but an absolute decision not to do so.
I now turn to the question of timetable recommendation. The Scrutiny Committee usually produces a report once a week. We sat on 10 May, and what a bumper meeting it was. We dealt with broadcasting; procurement by water, energy and transport; foreign language training—the Lingua programme; freedom of movement and rights of residence; economic and monetary union; and irradiation of foodstuffs. That was rather a heavy week. I shall quote the final paragraph on the Delors document on economic and monetary union which we considered raises questions of legal and political importance and recommended it for further consideration by the House. I shall read out the last paragraph on page xii of that report. I had better read the lot. It states:
"The Committee notes that the Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union"
—that is Mr. Delors' committee—
"was entrusted by the European Council with the task of studying and proposing stages leading towards an economic and monetary union and that its report concluded that Treaty amendment would be necessary to effect the transfer of decision-making powers from Member States to new or existing Community institutions to implement the latter two stages of its conception of economic and monetary union. It also notes that the Prime Minister has stated that the United Kingdom cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty that is
1210
implied in the report since economic and monetary union as spelt out in the report would in effect require political union, a United States of Europe, which is not, in her view, on the agenda now or for the foreseeable future, and that the Prime Minister has also stated that the Government does not believe that there should be further Treaty amendment as proposed by the report. Accordingly, in view of the evident legal and political importance of the report and the clear conflict between its proposals and the Government's views, the Committee recommends it for further consideration by the House. It considers that this debate should be held in good time before the European Council on 26–27 June, when the report is expected to be discussed by the Heads of Government."
We know from the press that many Heads of Government may go along with Mr. Delors' proposals. There may be changes in the last few days and it may be that there will not be a consensus. However, some people will go along with the statement made by the Government and the Prime Minister. Others—I will not name them since we know who they are and they have been expressing their views in print recently—may not go along with the statement. However, it is right and proper for the Government to seek to obtain support or otherwise—I am sure that they would receive support—for their view and expose it to debate. In that way when the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Paymaster General go to subsequent meetings they would have the view of the House. Surely that would strengthen their arm—or weaken it—and at least there would have been some consultation and consideration.
Such consultation was expected by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. Last week it had before it the Governor of the Bank of England who is a signatory to the report. We are not sure whether he was signing on the principles of the mechanics or the objectives. However, he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were both witnesses before the Committee. I have been told by the Chairman of the Committee that it is preparing a manuscript report to be available early next week in the expectation that a debate will take place.
Some people may say that we can find out what was said by reading the press. However, surely the idea of Select Committees—certainly departmental Select Committees—is that they are able to sort out and set out for the House in a reasonable and readable way the views and evidence provided by prestigious and well-informed persons. Unless one has had an opportunity to listen to what is going on, one will not know because no papers will be available for information other than through the Committee.
It is no use having material if it cannot be used in time for the deliberations that will take place. A great deal has been written and discussed recently about the departmental Select Committees. However, they are unable to be effective prior to the debate in Madrid.
The debate in Madrid is not public. That is not a criticism. I simply want to place that on record. In fact, its agenda is not known. During Question Time yesterday the Foreign Secretary was not very forthcoming on its full extent. We know that the Delors report will be discussed; as will matters relating to an equally contentious document on the social charter, on which there are different views. We are not having a debate on that but it is different from the document commisioned by the Heads of Government.
Matters may be raised by the Presidency about which we know nothing. I am not suggesting that the Leader of

1211
the House should hold a debate on a speculative basis but I am throwing in some of the other problems we have in respect of scrutiny. The Presidency has an entire department within the EEC and is able to select matters at will. A great deal of initiative is left to the Presidency. We may hear from the Prime Minister on her return that this, that or the other has been discussed and that decisions of principle have been taken. We may not know that such matters were being discussed and, therefore, could not debate them even if we wanted to.
Another general point that has arisen in the past week relates to the time and the period of debate. Exactly a week ago I asked the Leader of the House to consider an exemption to the one-and-a-half hour rule in respect of a debate due to take place on Tuesday on broadcasting rules for television, which the Commission proposes should apply to the EC—rules that will be resolved in the end by majority vote. I anticipated that many people would wish to speak in that debate. It started just after one o'clock early on Wednesday morning and lasted until 2.37 am.
Despite the late hour and the fact that the speeches were relatively brief and to the point, there was no time for the Minister to reply. Various matters were raised in the course of the debate on which the Minister could not comment. I do not complain about the choice of day because the matter is being discussed at this minute, so it had to be dealt with when it was. But the House was constrained by the fact that the debate was limited to an hour and a half. I put it to the House and to the Leader of the House—he has heard it before but I cannot over-emphasise it—the one-and-a-half hour limit was originally the time designated for the consideration of British secondary statutory instruments. We are talking about super-primary legislation.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the House talk about the need for greater scrutiny and better procedures, a matter with which many people are now grappling. The Procedure Committee is having a go at it, the Leader of the House and I are having fruitful conversations on it and there is proper correspondence between the Scrutiny Committee and the Leader of the House. All that is helpful, but there are certain things that should and could happen now which need no change in the Standing Orders, simply the use of the Government's powers and responsibilities to Parliament.
We do not just have a Government to produce legislation on the basis of one philosophy or another, and I hope that I am making a constitutional rather than a party speech. Every Government have a responsibility to parliamentary democracy. We know just how much the Prime Minister is wedded to that. She is always telling us how important it is, particularly in relation to the European Community. There is a moral and a constitutional obligation on the Government, as well as on the Leader of the House, who has particular concerns in this matter, not only to see that parliamentary democracy and representative government go on, but are seen to go on. But in respect of EC legislation, alas, that is not yet the case.
That matter does not relate simply to this Government. My esteemed predecessor, Mr. John Davies, a Cabinet Member and the first Chairman of the Select Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman, got into dead
1212
trouble with the Labour Government of the day, or they got into dead trouble because of what he was doing. On one occasion, he had to get all the members of his Committee to put down an early-day motion, headed by a former Cabinet Minister and well-respected gentleman who had strong views in one direction about the European Community—perfectly honourable and right ones. He had clashes with the Government, I think in good spirit, but in the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
I hope that I have not gone over the top today but rather have used those procedures which parliamentary democracy provides—which have ancient origins and which are there to be used on occasions—to draw attention to the matter, particularly to those who will read what we say, as well as the Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see here, and the Economic Secretary, who has been put to some personal inconvenience to be present.
I do not expect a long reply because the Minister has had only short notice, but the debate has illustrated the profound dilemmas that now confront Parliament and Government in the practice of representative democracy and in making sure that conversations on major matters, such as economic and monetary union, can be read about in the press in yards of articles, or in the form of speculation, argument or debate on the radio, of which we have heard quite a lot and will hear even more after the election results on Sunday. It may have some influence on what appears in the papers on the summit. But for Parliament not to be able to discuss such matters even on Adjournment debates—I am not asking for a substantive or amendable motion—would be seen as something strange by people outside.
As the former Leader of the House, Lord St. John of Fawsley, often told us, it is not this place that is the mother of Parliaments, but Britain. That this Parliament is unable to discuss major matters of European and constitutional issue prior to our representatives going to Europe to speak on our behalf would be judged by any constitutional textbook as something that should not be tolerated—I fear that history will judge it so.
I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will make a short reply; I do not expect a long one. The Lord President has been present and I know that he will draw this speech to the attention of others. There is yet time for something to be done. It has been known for business to be changed and there are other people who may exercise an influence—sometimes they are described as "the usual channels".
I hope that I have used the procedures of the House correctly. Unfortunately, it has been necessary for such a person as myself, with the backing of the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, to exercise those procedures. I believe that I have done so in the spirit of parliamentary democracy and I look for a response in exactly the same fashion.
9.36 pm
The Economic Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): First, I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his characteristic courtesy in giving me the maximum possible notice of his intention to raise this matter in the third Adjournment debate.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on the vigilance with which they pursue the scrutiny of the

1213
legislation that comes before this House or is in prospect and on the diligence with which they seek to ensure the House can scrutinise such legislation.
I was intending to assure the hon. Gentleman that I would convey to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the contents of his speech. As it is, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend has heard the cogent and powerful arguments that he has deployed. He knows that my right hon. Friend will consider them seriously. The fact that my right hon. Friend is here tonight is an indication of the importance he attaches to the hon. Gentleman, to
1214
his Committee and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and its Chairman who, I understand, joined with the hon. Gentleman in the points he raised tonight.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not giving a fuller and more substantive reply, but I believe that it is more important that such matters are considered by the Leader of the House and those associated with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports (Group of Seven)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table of the volume of exports per head of population of the Group of Seven countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information in both value and volume terms is in the following table.

  Exports per head of population, 1988

  1 Volume 1985=100

  Value Untied States$

  France

  110

  2,896

  Federal Republic of Germany

  111

  5,273

  Italy

  110

  2,247

  United Kingdom

  109

  2,538

  Canada

  117

  4,316

  United Stales of America

  129

  1,302

  Japan

  103

  2,160

  1 Export volume index adjusted for population change between 1985 and 1988.

  Source: OECD

  Post Office Monopoly
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for ending the Post Office monopoly.

  Mr. Forth
  We keep the options under review, but we have no present plans to end the monopoly. We have, however, made it clear that the Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right, and that in the event of a cessation or serious disruption of the letter service, we would consider suspending it.

  Liquidators
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the figures for the number of certificates issued for licensed liquidators since the Insolvency Act 1986 came into operation.

  Mr. Maude
  There are currently 1,737 individuals authorised to act as insolvency practitioners under the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Telecommunications (Liberalisation)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any decisions have been made as a result of the recommendations from the Director General of Telecommunications about the further liberalisation of telecommunication services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has received advice from the Director 480
  General of Telecommunications following a major consultation exercise which he undertook earlier this year. We are very grateful to the director general and his staff for the thorough and professional way they carried this cut.

  We have decided to accept the recommendations the director general has made for changes to the current regime for the provision of telecommunications services using the networks of, or circuits provided by, a fixed-link public telecommunications operator (PTO), that is British Telecommunications plc, Mercury Communications Ltd. or Kingston Communications plc.

  The first, and most important, of these is that we have decided to liberalise entirely the use made by companies of private circuits domestic to the United Kingdom leased from a PTO. Until now, companies leasing circuits have not been permitted to resell capacity to others or to share it with them. This prohibition arose from the fact that the price of private circuits leased from BT was historically below cost and provided significant opportunities for the use of leased lines to bypass the public network, tp the detriment of the ordinary user. For this reason, the operating licences of the PTOs prohibited until 1 July 1989 the use of leased lines to provide simple resale, that is the routing of a call from the public network, over a leased line and back on to the public network. This was intended to allow for the rebalancing of leased line and network charges.

  This rebalancing has now largely taken place within the United Kingdom, and we see no need any longer to prevent companies making use of leased lines however they choose, whether for voice or data services. We therefore intend to issue a licence permitting simple resale of United Kingdom domestic private circuits as well as other forms of resale, bypass and shared use. Those networks connected to the public switched network (PSN) will continue to be subject to the rules on technical quality standards.

  Although considerable tariff rebalancing has taken place on circuits within the United Kingdom, international tariffs are still out of line with costs. We have therefore decided to retain the current prohibition on international simple resale for the time being. However, we have accepted the director general's recommendation that he should keep the situation under review and advise us as and when further liberalisation is justified. The new licence will therefore be drafted in such a way as to allow us to liberalise international private circuits on a case-by-case basis as opportunities arise.

  The director general has also recommended other major changes to the existing licensing regime. In the light of his experience in administering the fair trading rules in the current value-added and data services licence, he has recommended that they be simplified in operation and more clearly targeted on companies likely to abuse a dominant position. Thus, companies which the director general considers dominant, with large businesses in telecommunications services, will continue to be covered by the present rules against cross-subsidisation, showing undue preference or discrimination and other detailed conditions. However, those rules in the current regime which impose heavy cost and which may deter people because of the difficulty of compliance are to be removed. These include the rule on publication of prices which is in abeyance already. Conversely, rules which are of value to

  481
  users, such as those on privacy and confidentiality, metering and numbering are to be applied to all operators, rather than just the largest.

  We have also accepted the director general's advice that the new licence should include a condition aimed at alleviating the nuisance to the users of the telephone, fax or other telecommunications systems caused by persistent but unsolicited attempts to sell products and services. Sellers by telephone or fax or those acting as their agents, will be required by the new licence to stop making these direct sales calls to any particular user of a telecommunication system when he has given them a written instruction to do so.

  Other changes which are to be made include provisions allowing greater flexibility for installers, maintainers and users of call-routing apparatus, the reduction of the minimum period for the termination of maintenance contracts to 42 days and the introduction of a requirement to provide inductive couplers in emergency telephones in lifts.

  Although the limit of 200 m for the provision of privately provided circuits between buildings will be retained, service providers will be permitted to run these systems on others' premises and the procedure for permitting exceptions to the 200 m rule (where justified) will be simplified.

  We believe these changes will add greatly to the freedom and the flexibility of telecommunications operators in the United Kingdom, and will keep the United Kingdom in the vanguard of telecommunications liberalisation both in Europe and worldwide. We intend to bring these changes about by issuing a new branch systems general licence during July. This will replace both the existing branch systems general licence and that for value-added and data services. My Department and the Office of Telecommunications are currently finalising the details of the new licence, and we shall inform the House when it is to be issued.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Major
  On 1 April 1989, there were 569,215 staff in post in central Government Departments. Of these 499,821 were non-industrials and 69,394 were industrials.

  Trustees
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the residence status of trustees for income tax purposes in the light of the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of Dawson v CIR.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have considered the implications of the House of Lords' recent decision in the case of Dawson v CIR, and have decided that the present law does not deal satisfactorily with the residence status for income tax purposes of trustees in cases where the trustees of a settlement include both a United Kingdom resident and a non-resident. We therefore propose to introduce new rules to determine the residence status of
  482
  such "mixed residence" trustees. Provided that the settlor was not resident, not ordinarily resident and not domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time he made the settlement (and at any later time when he provided funds), the trustees will be treated as not resident in the United Kingdom. Otherwise "mixed residence" trustees will all be treated as United Kingdom resident.

  This proposal will not affect trusts where the trustees are all United Kingdom residents, or all non-resident. In those cases, the existing rules will continue to apply.

  There will also be similar rules governing the residence status of personal representatives of a deceased person, where they include both a United Kingdom resident and a non-resident.

  There will also be provisions, applying to all trustees and personal representatives, to make it clear that income tax assessments may be made on any one or more of them.

  Further details of the proposals are set out in an Inland Revenue press release published today. The necessary provisions have been tabled for Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

  Savings
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the personal savings ratio.

  Mr. Lilley
  We expect many of the factors which led to the fall in the personal savings ratio to reverse themselves over the medium term. In addition, the rise in interest rates over the past year will encourage higher savings and lower borrowing.

  Orchids
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Customs and Excise take to prevent the smuggling of rare orchids into Britain.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: Customs and Excise makes every effort to prevent the illegal import of listed orchids and other items covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Mr. David Morphet
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether any conditions have been attached by the advisory committee on business appointments to the employment by Balfour Beatty of Mr. David Morphet, formerly of the Department of Energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  It is not our practice to divulge information about individual applications under the business appointment rules, as to do so would be a breach of confidence and privacy.

ENERGY

  AGR Fuel Rods
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many spent AGR fuel rods are expected to be produced in each year from 1989 to 2000 and if advanced gas-cooled reactors produce electricity at their planned output during the 1990s.
  483
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the earliest date by which the proposed Heysham AGR dry storage facility could be ready; and whether it will be large enough to store all the spent AGR fuel from all of Britain's AG Rs for their planned lifetimes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the details of safeguards inspection for civil nuclear materials and facilities agreed with the European Commission regulation 3227/76; and when such inspections began.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Euratom inspections began in 1973. It is not the custom within Euratom to publish details of the inspection arrangements for any nuclear facility in the Community.

  Irradiated Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West, June, he will list the countries of origin and dates on which consignments of irradiated fuel have been returned to their countries of origin since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The country of origin of the shipments referred to in the answer to the hon. Member on 7 June is included in those listed in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 18 February 1987 at column 635. Details of individual consignments are confidential.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, (Dr. Thomas)Official Report, 8 May column 289, whether the reports on plutonium production sent by reactor operators to safeguards authorities are detailed routinely to (a) single gramme quantities, (b) tens of grammes quantities, or (c) hundreds of grammes quantities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Euratom regulation 3227/76 article 21 (a) requires quantities of special nuclear material to be expressed in grammes.

  Uranimum (Namibia)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 19 May, column 314, which was the competent authority in Namibia which gave the N obligation code to the consignment of Namibian uranium imported to the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The N obligation code was assigned by the Euratom safeguards authorities.

  Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will detail all his Department's policies and proposals regarding(a) acid rain and (b) pollution by nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government will ensure that the CEGB and its successor companies contribute to the emission reduction requirements of the European Communities' large combustion plant directive. These are to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide by 60 per cent. on 1980 levels by 2003 and nitrogen oxides by 30 per cent. on 1980 levels by 1998. We shall encourage the development and application of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable. Furthermore, the non-fossil fuel obligation which will be placed on the public electricity suppliers in the privatised electricity industry and the continuing work of the energy efficiency office will help to reduce acid rain.

  Policy on radioactive waste is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Conservation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will detail his Department's specific proposals for energy conservation for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Details of the Government's proposals on energy efficiency have been published annually in the public expenditure White Paper and in response to reports of the Select Committee on Energy.

  Safeguards Agreement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many withdrawals from safeguards, under article 14 of the 1978 tripartite safeguards agreement between United Kingdom—Euratom—International Atomic Energy Authority, have been made since May 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Some temporary withdrawals have been made for technical operational reasons with the material being returned to safeguards after it has been processed in unsafeguarded facilities. Some permanent withdrawals have also been made. It would not be in the public interest to reveal details of these.

WALES

  Careers Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools careers local education authority school teachers there were in Wales in May 1980 and at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, information from the 1984 secondary school staffing survey indicates that in 1984 there were 473 teachers of careers education. A further staffing survey is currently under way.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has met teachers' organisations to discuss his Department's plans to test children at seven years of age; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has met teachers' organisations to discuss his Department's policy of testing pupils at the age of 14 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Welsh Office Ministers and officials have met representatives of teachers' organisations on numerous occasions and the subjects discussed have included assessment and testing of children in accordance with the Education Reform Act.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has plans for compulsory dog registration in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have no plans to introduce dog registration in Wales.

  Shotton and Connah's Quay Bypass
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Alyn and Deeside district council, Clwyd county council and the Deeside town and community councils to discuss how his Department might assist in the building of a Shotton and Connah's Quay bypass, including a new river crossing of the River Dee at Connah's Quay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It would not be appropriate: this is a matter for Clwyd county council as the responsible highway authority. However I am fully aware of its proposals and expect to receive a bid for transport supplementary support.

  Land Development (Shotton)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Clwyd county council and Alyn and Deeside district council to discuss with them how his Department might assist those local authorities in developing land adjacent to the River Dee which was previously the site of steelmaking activity at Shotton.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. My statutory responsibilities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 preclude me from discussing with local authorities the proposals for the development of specific sites. If proposals that emerge for the development of the site demonstrate a need for central Government financial support, my Department's officers will be available to discuss this with the local authorities.

  Hill Farms
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for hill farms in marginal land areas within the less-favoured areas the(a) average size in hectares, (b) farm income, (c) number of farms, (d) number of ewes and (e) number of beef cows for the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Figures relating to holdings in the disadvantaged areas of the less-favoured areas in respect of June 1988 are given in the following table:486

  Figures

  (a) Average size in hectares

  41·5

  (c) Number of holdings

  6,082

  (d) Number of breeding ewes

  582,024

  (e) Number of breeding beef cows

  23,859

  A figure for (b) farm income is not published separately for marginal area farms. However, for all LFA livestock farms net farm income in 1987–88 was £9,453.

  Minibus Licensing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of proposed European Economic Community regulations on minibus licensing on voluntary organisations in Wales; and whether he will oppose the proposed regulations.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The proposed EC regulation, which would require new minibus drivers to take a second driving test and to meet higher health standards, would have significant social and cost consequences for voluntary and community transport organisations which rely heavily on volunteer drivers. The Government consider there are no road safety reasons for the proposed change, and the European Commission is being pressed to avoid introducing unnecessary restrictions.

  Mandatory Repairs Grant
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date Welsh local authorities were first informed of changes in the amount of mandatory repairs grant from 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. for landlords under sections 130 and 131 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  Local authorities were consulted about proposals for changes to the rate of repair grant for landlords during the course of 1987 and 1988, and were notified of the change in rate (to 20 per cent.) in advance correspondence which was issued on 10 January this year.

  Sewage
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend on 12 June,Official Report, columns 306–308, concerning the applications from the Welsh water authority for variations of existing discharge consents for sewage treatment works, if he will indicate for which of the works listed requests were made for the discharge standards to be (a) relaxed and (b) tightened up.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with full details of the applications as soon as possible and I will place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by central and local government in Wales, for the last year for which figures are available, on(a) local authority services, including the police, (b) health services and (c) economic development.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: Details of expenditure within my responsibility are given in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to

  487
  1991–92" (Cm. 617) and in the Welsh Office commentary. The last year for which firm outturn figures are available for local authorities is 1986–87. The net public expenditure figures requested are as follows:

  £million

  1986–87 outturn

  Local authority expenditure in Wales1

  2,015

  National Health Services

  989

  Industry and Employment

  178

  1 Including police and other non-Welsh Office services.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Heroin (Crop Substitution)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds he is currently providing to promote crops substitution in Pakistan to control heroin traffic: how the funds are to be administered and monitored; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have committed £3·4 million to the United Nations fund for drugs abuse control crops substitution and special rural development programme in the Dir district of the North-West Frontier province. The programme is part of the special development and enforcement plan for poppy growing areas. £2·4 million of the grants has been spent so far.

  Administrative and monitoring arrangements are to be strengthened by the recruitment of a three-man technical support unit to assist provincial government officials and the UNFDAC field officer.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Commission
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the European Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive a number of such representations.

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what communication she has received from the Government of Brazil concerning assistance with preservation of the tropical rain forest.

  The Prime Minister
  Following discussions with senior representatives of the Brazilian Government, the Secretary-General of the Brazilian Ministry of the Interior has written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development inviting Her Majesty's Government to agree on a programme of technical co-operation in the environmental field. A team of British professional experts has this week returned from Brazil where they discussed how we might help; my hon. Friend will take this further when he visits Brazil in July.

  European Directives
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the scale and pattern of directives emerging from the Commission; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect the European Council to discuss a number of current Community issues. I also refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 6 June at column 129.

  Engagements
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 'Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

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

  Government Publicity
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of paragraph 13 of the guidance on conventions on Government publicity issued by the Cabinet Office, advice on the propriety of methods of releasing official information by officials will be sought from the Cabinet Office prior or subsequently to the receipt of ministerial sanction for express approval for the release of such information.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for Departments to decide whether and when to seek such advice in the light of paragraph 12 of the guidance.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

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

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The journalists invited to press briefings depend upon the matter under discussion.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the amount of
  489
  money spent on medical research in each of the last 10 years broken down into (a) the total figure per year, (b) the percentage spent on AIDS and (c) as a percentage of the total research budget.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main agency through which the Government support medical research is the Medical

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Grant in aid to MRC

  Amount of (a) spent on specific programmes of AIDS research

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  Science Budget

  (a) as a percentage of(d)

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  £ million

  Percentage

  1979–80

  57·2

  —

  —

  333

  17·2

  1980–81

  86·6

  —

  —

  396

  21·9

  1981–82

  101·5

  —

  —

  440

  23·1

  1982–83

  107·5

  —

  —

  469

  22·9

  1983–84

  113·7

  —

  —

  504

  22·6

  1984–85

  117·2

  0·1

  0·1

  535

  21·9

  1985–86

  122·3

  0·4

  0·3

  571

  21·4

  1986–87

  128·3

  0·7

  0·5

  603

  21·3

  1987–88

  139·8

  3·7

  2·6

  658

  21·2

  1988–89

  149·6

  5·0

  3·3

  709

  21·1

  In addition, universities and medical schools support a range of medical research, including AIDS research, from block grants provided by the Universities Funding Council (formerly the University Grants Committee). Other medical research is supported by the health authorities.

  Schools (Fences)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue a circular to local authorities, concerning the dangers caused to pupils and teachers through inadequate fencing around primary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is not necessary to issue a circular on the danger caused to pupils and teachers through inadequate fencing around primary schools. Local authorities are already aware of the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and circular 11/74 issued by the DES following that Act.

  Gateshead City Technology College
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many tenders were received for the development of the Gateshead city technology college; and what were the various tender prices submitted.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Five tenders were received. Prices ranged from £6,730,000 to £7,245,000. The price offered by Laing Northern was the lowest, and its design proposals were considered to be the most appropriate of those submitted.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the light of the contribution from public funds towards the development costs of the Gateshead city technology college(a) who will own the buildings, (b) who will own the land which constitutes the site once the project is completed and (c) to whom the assets will revert should the school fail to open or close at some future date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Tyneside city technology college trust will own the land and buildings. The funding 490
  Research Council. The following table shows, for each of the last 10 years, the grant in aid to the MRC, the amount of that spent on specific programmes of AIDS research, and the grant in aid to the MRC as a percentage of the total science budget:

  agreement between my right hon. Friend and each individual CTC will specify the conditions under which repayment will be made to him in the event that the school should close.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date John Laing plc became a sponsor of the Gateshead city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  John Laing announced its sponsorship of the CTC in Gateshead in October 1988.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what elements of the national curriculum the Gateshead city technology college will be obliged to adopt.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As a condition of grant, all CTCs will be bound to offer the full national curriculum including assessment arrangements throughout the compulsory years of education.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what investigations were made into possible inner-city sites for the Gateshead city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Investigations were made into other sites in Tyne and Wear, but none was found to be suitable.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total contribution of the CTC Trust to the development of the Gateshead city technology college to date; for what specific purposes such money has been allocated; and what further advances are planned.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The CTC Trust has not itself contributed financially to the development of the Gateshead CTC. It was, however, involved in the negotiations for the acquisition of the site.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the Gateshead city technology college roll must be drawn from the inner-city area in order for the college to comply with the aims and objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policy to develop city technology colleges.
  491
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The catchment area for the Gateshead CTC is not yet finalised, but it will be drawn so as to include surrounding areas of deprivation, and every effort will be made to ensure that as high a proportion of children as possible come from those areas.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the opening and closing dates for the submission of tenders for the development of the Gateshead city technology college; and what date the tender from Laing Northern was received; and who had access to the tenders submitted prior to the closing date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The date for submission of tenders was 12 May. All tenders, including the tender from Laing Northern, were received under sealed cover on that day. They were opened, stamped, and their contents formally recorded, in the presence of five witnesses. I do not know of any person who had access to the tenders before submission. The DES, and the sponsors (other than John Laing plc), and the members of the panel had no such access.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which of the sponsors of the Gateshead city technology college were involved in the decision to award the development contract to Laing Northern.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The decision upon the award of the development contract was made by an evaluation panel composed of Mr. Peter Vardy, as the principal sponsor, the chief architect of Argyll plc, the chief architect of the DES, the project director, and three independent assessors nominated by my Department. John Laing plc was not represented on the panel and had no part whatsoever in the decision.

  Student Loans
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is his intention to charge interest on student loans in cases where repayment is deferred because of low earnings after graduation.

  Mr. Jackson
  As was made clear in the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520), the Government's proposals arc for a zero real interest rate on the outstanding balance of the top-up loan; where repayments are deferred because a graduate's income is low, a real interest rate of zero will continue to apply during the period of deferment.

EMPLOYMENT

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of the scheme ports once the dock labour scheme is abolished; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received a number of representations supporting the Government's proposals to abolish the dock labour scheme so that scheme ports can become more competitive and attract new investment to provide jobs in the ports themselves and in surrounding areas.

  Lifting the barriers to business and jobs imposed by the scheme's damaging and unnecessary controls has been widely welcomed throughout industry.

  EC Social Charter
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards those clauses of the European Community's draft social charter which would ensure the participation of the work force in decision making within companies.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government believe firmly that employee involvement in the United Kingdom is best developed on a voluntary basis. We shall therefore continue to oppose attempts to legislate on this subject.

SCOTLAND

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contingency plans his Department has for dealing with an accident involving(a) any seaborne, (b) any airborne or (c) any landborne nuclear weapons, in the course of non-operational activities, including courtesy calls.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave today to a similar question from the hon. Member.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of Thursday, 25 May,Official Report, column 25, if he will place those representations on tree planting in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The representations were contained in private correspondence and it would therefore be inappropriate to place them in the Library.

  Rates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will produce a table for each district council showing the total yield from the rate payment for 1988–89 showing the breakdown of the amount attributed to district and region.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated yields from rate payments are set out in the table.

  Total District Rate Income 1988–89

  Total Regional Rate Income 1988–89

  Total Rate Income 1988–89

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  —

  9·076

  9·076

  Shetland

  —

  50·370

  50·370

  Western Isles

  —

  6·656

  6·6:56

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  0·765

  3·925

  4·690

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1·766

  8·015

  9·781

  Roxburgh

  1·800

  7·345

  9·145

  Tweedale

  0·644

  3·426

  4·070

  Clackmannan

  4·617

  13·468

  18·085

  Falkirk

  12·819

  46·081

  58·899

  Stirling

  11·063

  26·574

  37·637

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1·958

  8·568

  10·526

  493

  Total District Rate Income 1988–89

  Total Regional Rate Income 1988–89

  Total Rate Income 1988–89

  Nithsdale

  3·425

  15·082

  18·507

  Stewartry

  11·32

  5·642

  6·774

  Wigtown

  1·242

  6·621

  7·863

  Dunfermline

  11·316

  52·843

  64·159

  Kirkcaldy

  13·738

  50·716

  64·454

  North East Fife

  5·250

  21·294

  26·543

  Aberdeen City

  25·213

  86·238

  111·451

  Banff & Buchan

  6·076

  23·127

  29·203

  Gordon

  3·009

  13·839

  16·847

  Kincardine & Deeside

  1·978

  11·195

  13·173

  Moray

  4·970

  22·472

  27·442

  Badenoch & Strathspey

  0·516

  3·604

  4·120

  Caithness

  1·344

  6·002

  7·346

  Inverness

  3·868

  22·961

  26·829

  Lochaber

  1·581

  6·148

  7·729

  Nairn

  0·339

  2·319

  2·658

  Ross & Cromarty

  3·142

  14·122

  17·264

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·510

  2·367

  2·876

  Sutherland

  0·425

  2·467

  2·892

  East Lothian

  7·637

  27·209

  34·846

  Edinburgh City

  54·718

  200·989

  255·706

  Midlothian

  5·860

  20·778

  26·638

  West Lothian

  10·214

  41·445

  51·659

  Argyll & Bute

  5·842

  18·518

  24·360

  Bearsden &Milngavie

  3·045

  13·810

  16·855

  Clydebank

  4·431

  13·784

  18·215

  Clydesdale

  4·031

  14·429

  18·460

  Cumbernauld &Kilsyth

  4·980

  18·265

  23·246

  Cumnock &Doon Valley

  2·444

  8·575

  11·019

  Cunninghame

  14·997

  44·444

  59·441

  Dumbarton

  8·424

  26·847

  35·271

  East Kilbride

  6·721

  28·520

  35·241

  £ thousands

  Yield of district community charge

  Yield of region-al community charge

  Yield of water charge

  Total yield of community charge

  Islands Councils

  Orkney

  —

  1,812

  386

  2,198

  Shetland

  —

  1,746

  110

  1,856

  Western Isles

  —

  3,223

  800

  4,023

  District Council

  Berwickshire

  457

  2,565

  457

  3,480

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,069

  4,428

  789

  6,286

  Roxburgh

  1,154

  4,780

  852

  6,785

  Tweeddale

  501

  2,026

  361

  2,888

  Clackmannan

  2,999

  6,825

  517

  10,340

  Falkirk

  4,873

  20,974

  1,589

  27,435

  Stirling

  5,729

  11,695

  886

  18,310

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,312

  4,981

  781

  7,074

  Nithsdale

  1,699

  7,778

  1,220

  10,698

  Stewartry

  698

  3,368

  528

  4,594

  Wigtown

  936

  4,177

  655

  5,768

  Dunfermline

  5,231

  20,924

  1,712

  27,868

  Kirkcaldy

  6,597

  24,190

  1,979

  32,767

  North East Fife

  4.144

  11,119

  910

  16,173

  Aberdeen City

  13,552

  30,134

  4,783

  48,469

  Banff and Buchan

  3,510

  11,702

  1,857

  17,069

  Gordon

  2,259

  9,702

  1,540

  13,501

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,115

  6,588

  1,046

  8,749

  Moray

  2,685

  12,083

  1,918

  16,686

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  326

  1,677

  186

  2,189

  Caithness

  498

  3,589

  399

  4,486

  Inverness

  1,179

  8,164

  907

  10,251

  Lochaber

  541

  2,630

  292

  3,462

  Nairn

  213

  1,371

  152

  1,737

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,382

  6,377

  709

  8,468

  Skye and Lochalsh

  238

  1,711

  190

  2,138

  Sutherland

  65

  1,958

  218

  2,241

  East Lothian

  4,401

  18,304

  1,148

  23,853

  Edinburgh City

  28,962

  95,541

  5,992

  130,495

  Midlothian

  3,543

  17.236

  1,081

  21,860

  494

  Total District Rate Income 1988–89

  Total Regional Rate Income 1988–89

  Total Rate Income 1988–89

  Eastwood

  3·022

  17·731

  20·752

  Glasgow City

  113·829

  262·992

  376·820

  Hamilton

  8·883

  29·705

  38·588

  Inverclyde

  6·870

  25·781

  32·651

  Kilmarnock & Loudoun

  6·690

  21·806

  28·495

  Kyle & Carrick

  10·509

  37·274

  47·782

  Monklands

  8·342

  27·957

  36·298

  Motherwell

  11·868

  44·333

  56·201

  Renfrew

  18·752

  62·941

  81·692

  Strathkelvin

  5·981

  22·301

  28·283

  Angus

  5·861

  24·001

  29·862

  Dundee City

  20·687

  53·522

  74·209

  Perth & Kinross

  9·262

  36·725

  45·988

  Scotland

  488·401

  1,697·242

  2,185·644

  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".

  Community Charge
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the figures given in the table in his written answer of 12 June showing the amount attributable to the district and the region.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures given in the table are the estimated yields, in 1989–90, of community and water charges in the district, regional and islands councils in Scotland.
  495

  Yield of district community charge

  Yield of region-al community charge

  Yield of water charge

  Total yield of community charge

  West Lothian

  5,483

  29,143

  1,828

  36,454

  Argyll and Bute

  2,977

  10,267

  975

  14,220

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2,392

  6,057

  575

  9,025

  Clydebank

  2,852

  7,314

  695

  10,861

  Clydesdale

  3,520

  8,585

  816

  12,920

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,481

  8,862

  842

  12,186

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,831

  6,425

  610

  8,867

  Cunninghame

  6,106

  20,697

  1,966

  28,769

  Dumbarton

  4,581

  11,597

  1,102

  17,280

  East Kilbride

  6,086

  12,258

  1,165

  19,491

  Eastwood

  2,698

  8,565

  814

  12,076

  Glasgow City

  46,323

  106,491

  10,117

  162,931

  Hamilton

  5,582

  15,505

  1,473

  22,560

  Inverclyde

  5,160

  14,334

  1,362

  20,856

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2,984

  11,935

  1,134

  16,052

  Kyle and Carrick

  7,676

  17,250

  1,639

  26,565

  Monklands

  5,560

  15,027

  1,428

  22,015

  Motherwell

  9,295

  21,615

  2,054

  32,964

  Renfrew

  11,268

  29,652

  2,817

  43.737

  Strathkelvin

  5,143

  12,857

  1,221

  19,221

  Angus

  3,646

  15,427

  1,473

  20,546

  Dundee City

  10,746

  28,484

  2,719

  41,949

  Perth and Kinross

  5,530

  20,975

  2,002

  28,508

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is proposing to make for relieving owners of unoccupied farm cottages of their liability to pay the standard community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today laid before Parliament a set of regulations—the Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989—which provide that certain unoccupied and unfurnished agricultural dwellinghouses, which fulfil conditions prescribed in those regulations, will be exempt from the standard community charge and the standard community water charge.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land was approved for afforestation in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales in the 12 months ending 1 April; of this how much was for (i) coniferous and (ii) deciduous planting; how much was actually planted; and of both approved and planted totals how much was in respect of land on which set-aside payments were being made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following areas of land were approved for afforestation under Forestry Commission grant schemes in the year ended 31 March 1989:

  Hectares

  Country

  Area of planting (including set-aside)

  Area under set-aside

  Scotland

  16,000

  120

  England

  2,100

  40

  Wales

  600

  nil

  Total

  18,700

  160

  Information is not held centrally on the breakdown of these areas between broadleaves and conifers.
  496
  The following were the areas of new planting on which grants were paid under Forestry Commission Grant schemes in the year ended 31 March 1989:

  Area of planting

  Hectares

  Country

  Conifers

  Broadleaves

  Scotland

  20,900

  1,550

  England

  750

  900

  Wales

  700

  200

  Total

  22,350

  2,650

  No planting grants were paid in respect of land on which set-aside payments are to be made.

  It should be noted that (i) areas approved for planting are not necessarily planted and grant aided in the same year, and (ii) the above figures exclude land for which planting grants were approved or paid in association with the farm woodland scheme.

  Language Teaching
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Indic language teaching in Scottish schools is given equal status with European languages; and what is done to overcome any lack of availability of such classes for school children of Asian extraction who wish to learn one of the Indic languages.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: Guidance to education authorities on the teaching in schools of languages other than English, issued in SED circular No. 1178 of 12 January 1989, urges that Asian languages and the traditions they represent should be respected and fostered, and confirms that the inclusion of an Asian language within the curriculum from SI or S2 is appropriate where demand exists and can be met. It is for education authorities to decide whether and when it may be appropriate to include such a language in the curriculum of any school.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eggs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the shortfall in eggs to meet domestic demand this summer; and whether he has any control over the eggs imported to meet this shortfall.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is not possible to provide a precise estimate of the likely balance between the supply and demand for eggs this summer. Placings for egg layer production have fallen in recent months, in line with reductions in demand earlier this year, and this will have an effect on the supply situation. On the question of controls on imported eggs, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 20 April at column 280.

  Monofilament Nets
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the depth at which monofilament nets are usually set at(a) inshore waters and (b) at sea; and if he will list the regulations and byelaws which control the siting and setting of such nets.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Monofilament nets are set at varying depths depending on the location and the species of fish sought. There are no specific national regulations governing the siting and setting of fixed nets within the fishery limits for England and Wales but their use out to six miles may be regulated by local byelaws made by water authorities and sea fisheries committees. Details of such byelaws are available from the offices of these bodies.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his fisheries inspectors routinely examine fixed monofilament nets by removing them from the water; if these inspections involved the recording and monitoring of the incidental capture of marine mammals and sea birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There are currently no regulations on fixed monofilament nets and consequently no requirement for my fisheries inspectors to examine them. As regards the incidental capture of marine mammals, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 March 1989 at column 464: my Department is continuing to develop its plans for the monitoring scheme. We have no plans at present for monitoring the incidental capture of sea birds, although we are keeping the situation under review.

  Slaugher and Compensation Schemes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those notifiable diseases in animals for which a slaugher and compensation scheme operates; and if he will list those notifiable diseases in animals for which a compensation scheme does not operate.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Notifiable diseases for which a slaugher and compensation scheme operates are:

  African swine fever

  Aujeszky's disease

  498

  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

  Brucellosis melitensis in cattle

  Cattle plague in ruminants and swine

  Classical swine fever

  Foot and mouth disease

  Pleuro-pneumonia in cattle

  Rabies

  Swine vesicular disease

  Tuberculosis in cattle

  (b) Notifiable diseases for which a slaughter and compensation scheme does not operate are:

  African horse sickness

  Anthrax

  Contagious equine metritis

  Dourine in horses, asses, mules and zebras

  Enzootic bovine leukosis

  Epizootic lymphangitis in horse, asses and mules

  Equine encephalomyelitis

  Equine infectious anaemia

  Fowl pest (fowl plague, Newcastle disease and paramyxovirus) in poultry of any kind

  Glanders and farcy in horses, asses and mules

  Paramyxovirus in pigeons

  Sheep pox

  Sheep scab

  Teschen disease of pigs

  Tuberculosis in deer

  Warble fly

  Nitrates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the leaching of nitrates from land formerly used for nitrogen-fixing crops once that land has been included in the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  Such information is not yet available from set-aside scheme trials, but it will be provided by experiments currently in progress. Meanwhile, scientific evidence indicates that nitrate leaching from land converted from nitrogen fixing crops to permanent fallow could be relatively high in the first year, but it would fall subsequently.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision is made within the set-aside scheme to minimise pollution of ground water and water courses by nitrates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Under the rules for the management of land set aside to fallow under the scheme, a plant cover must be established and maintained on the land concerned and the use of fertilisers is not generally permitted. Furthermore, advice is available to farmers from my Department on the best practices for the avoidance of pollution by nitrates.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his top-up scheme for enhancing the environmental value of set-aside land.

  Mr. Ryder
  The top-up scheme, which will be known as the countryside premium for set-aside land, will be administered by the Countryside Commission with advice and assistance from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Department of the Environment and my Department. Details of the scheme are to be announced on 19 June by the chairman of the Countryside Commission.

  Bovine Somatatropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether cows treated with bovine somatatropin under experiment can subsequently be sold for slaughter for human consumption; and whether his Department imposes any time limit on the period to elapse between the ending of bovine somatatropin treatment and slaughter.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  When the animal test certificates for BST products were assessed, the veterinary products committee, following rigorous evaluation of all the available data, was satisfied that it would be safe to eat meat from treated cows when they were culled. Accordingly, such cows may be sold for slaughter for human consumption; no withdrawal period has been specified.

  Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) for what purpose information is collected on each dog imported into the United Kingdom;

  (2) how many American bandogs are presently in quarantine following importation;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the powers available to his Department to control the importation of dogs;

  (4) if records on the importation of dogs kept by the animal health division of his Department are kept manually in written form, or on computers;

  (5) what advice has been issued to members of his Department concerning American bandogs; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what information he has on the origins, purpose, characteristics and temperament of the American bandog; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what is the number of Neopolitan mastiff bitches currently in quarantine in the United Kingdom; and what information he has as to the purposes of their import;

  (8) what records his Department keeps on the importation of dogs; and whether these include information as to the breed, sex, age, weight, name, colour, distinguishing marks, exporter and importer of each dog;

  (9) what returns of information on the importation of dogs are submitted by the animal health division of his Department to the central statistical unit of his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 as amended restricts the importation of dogs to licensed animals landed at prescribed ports and airports and requires them to be quarantined for six months. These powers are designed to prevent the introduction of rabies into this country and not to limit the number and breeds of dogs imported. Applicants for import licences must provide information, necessary for identification should it escape during quarantine, concerning the dog's breed, sex, age, weight, name, colour and distinguishing marks, together with details of the owner, authorised carrying agent, quarantine premises and expected date of landing. No information is required as to the purpose of the importation.

  All information is retained on a confidential basis by the animal health division in the form of manual records. Summary data by breed are not kept and it is not possible
  500
  to say how many Neopolitan mastiff bitches or American bandogs are presently in quarantine, as these may not have been described as such in the licence application. I understand that an American bandog is a cross between a pit bull terrier and a Neopolitan bull mastiff bull. No advice has been issued concerning this breed.

  Rabies
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest information he has on the prevalence of rabies in Europe.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The WHO centre at Tuebingen, West Germany recorded 5,051 European rabies cases for the fourth quarter 1988. The total for the same quarter 1987 was 4,280 cases. A species breakdown for the fourth quarter 1988 reveals:

  Numbers

  Wild animals

  3,950

  of which Red Fox

  3,536

  Domestic animals

  1,100

  of which

  Dogs—Europe

  75

  Dogs—Turkey

  100

  Urban rabies continues to occur in Turkey, where 77 per cent. of all cases were in dogs, and 99·6 per cent. of all cases occurred in domestic animals. One human case occurred, in Blackburn, England. The disease had been contracted in Pakistan. There are undoubtedly cases of human rabies in Turkey but there is no regular reporting of these cases to the rabies centre. In several countries, a substantial rise in cases has been reported. Although a single quarter's figures must not be taken out of context, it is clear that the progress being made in the control of wildlife rabies in western Europe will be slow.

  The yearly total shows a reduction of 3·7 per cent. In West Germany, which has previously recorded dramatic falls in the number of cases, the number recorded was 31 more than in the fourth quarter 1987. A substantial increase in cases (490–53 per cent. of the country's total) occurred in the Bundesland Hessen. All the other Bundeslander registered slight rises or remained stable. However, the total for 1988 in West Germany was 2,628, compared with 791 in 1987. It seems that areas where the oral vaccination of foxes has only been used once are the most vulnerable. Clearly, this form of control has to be repeated regularly. Although expensive, this appears to be a successful method of limiting the number of cases. It is not, however, a procedure which will, without other supporting mechanisms, lead to the eradication of rabies from Europe.

  In Belgium, the number of cases continues to increase, taking the year's total to 515 cases; however, in the areas where oral vaccination of foxes has been carried out, the number of cases has reduced by 49 per cent.

  In France, there has been no extension of the "rabies front" westwards. A total of 2,223 known cases was recorded in 1988, 155 more than in 1987. Most of the cases are found in the fox.

  Italy has recorded 19 cases in the area bordering Yugoslavia. Much surveillance of wild and domestic animal carcases has been carried out, and some foxes were found positive in one Alpine region. Oral vaccination of foxes is planned in the spring, using the Tuebingen

  501
  vaccine, in conjunction with Yugoslavia and Austria. Vaccination of dogs and grazing animals is also compulsory.

  Switzerland recorded only 16 cases, and none were recorded from Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Norway and Spain.

  Bats found positive to rabies-related virus were recorded in the Netherlands (5) and West Germany (1). The total number of cases in Europe in 1988 was 53, compared to 140 in 1987. Denmark and Spain (affected in 1987) had no new cases. There continues to be no evidence of bat-related rabies virus in terrestrial mammals in Europe. During the quarter, 25 bats were examined in Great Britain, and all were found to be negative.

  Confusion Marks
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the annual administration costs, for each of the last five years of operation of the beef variable premium scheme and of maintaining the register of confusion marks; and how many animals were so registered in each of these years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The beef variable premium scheme was administered on behalf of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce by the Meat and Livestock Commission in Great Britain and by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland. Their costs over the last five years are estimated to have been as follows:

  £ million

  1MLC

  DANI

  1984–85

  3·8

  0·6

  1985–86

  4·0

  0·7

  1986–87

  4·1

  0·7

  1987–88

  4·4

  0·8

  1988–89

  4·4

  0·8

  1 BVPS duties were usually carried out by MLC officers concurrently with their responsibilities under the sheep variable premium scheme. BVPS costs are therefore calculated as a proportion of the total cost of administering both schemes based on the number of presentations under each.

  These figures include the costs of administering the confusion mark procedures. These were operated on a local basis and the costs of administration and numbers animals were not centrally recorded.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contingency plans his Department has for dealing with an accident involving(a) any seaborne, (b) any airborne or (c) any landborne nuclear weapon, in the course of non-operational activities, including courtesy calls.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Contingency plans throughout the United Kingdom for accidents involving nuclear weapons are a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. In the event of any such incident affecting Northern Ireland these would be complemented by local contingency plans.

  School Buses (Accidents)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the 502
  incidence by area or district of road traffic accidents involving children disembarking from school buses, indicating the number of such fatalities in the past five years.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Information is not available in the exact form requested. Existing records do not differentiate between types of bus operators and the following information includes buses operated by education and library boards, public service vehicles used solely for transporting children to and from school and buses used by the general public. Details of children, that is, persons under 15 years of age, killed immediately after alighting from buses are as follows:

  Location

  Year

  Number of fatalities

  1 Armagh

  1984

  3

  1 Lisburn

  1 Bellaghy

  1 Greyabbey

  1985

  1

  1 Loup

  1986

  2

  1 Ballymoney

  1 Castledawson

  1987

  1

  1 Coleraine

  1988

  1

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigrants
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the policy of his Department in treating as illegal immigrants entrants who have been given leave to enter the United Kingdom and who are alleged to have withheld information from an entry certificate officer or immigration officer.

  Mr. Renton
  A person who deliberately withholds evidence and thereby gains entry to which he would not otherwise be entitled may be treated as an illegal entrant under the Immigration Act 1971 and removed from the country. It is clearly right that people coming to this country should not benefit from deceiving the entry clearance officer or the immigration officer. All such cases are fully and carefully considered before removal is authorised.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has been able to make an assessment of the anti-racial harassment campaign launched by the Metropolitan police at the beginning of the current year and its effect on public opinion and public reaction.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for the commissioner, not the Home Office, to make his assessment of the Metropolitan police campaign, I understand that the commissioner intends that the campaign will be evaluated. The Metropolitan police are determined to meet the needs of the community in this sensitive area, and the campaign is playing a central part in their strategy.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are known to his Department; and what was the equivalent number five years ago.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of March 1989 there were 66,423 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering approximately 3.25 million households. This compares with 3,669 schemes in January 1985—an increase of 62,754, or 1,710 per cent. over the period.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  Mr. Hurd
  During the 12 months ending 31 March 1989 a total of 184 people were detained in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1984 and 1989. A total of 173 of these detentions were in connection with Northern Irish terrorism and 11 were in connection with international terrorism. Twenty seven of those people were charged. During the same period, 17 people were made subject to new exclusion orders.

  Jersey (Housing)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning housing in Jersey.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During the last year we have had representations about three such cases.

  Burglary (Humberside)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce burglary in Humberside.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government believe that a high proportion of burglaries are preventable. That is why we have encouraged neighbourhood watch schemes which can do so much to help prevent crime. Five years ago there were no watch schemes in Humberside. There are now over 1,300 such schemes in Humberside, covering some 30,000 households. At the end of April 1989 burglaries from dwellings in Humberside had fallen by 21 per cent. compared to two years ago. Detection of burglaries has increased by 28 per cent. over 1988 figures. Hull has agreed to participate in the Home Office safer cities programme and a project is being set up in the city this year. Its aims are to reduce crime, lessen the fear of crime, and create a safer city within which economic enterprise and community life can flourish.

  Prohibited Drugs
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his plans to ensure that prohibited drugs are not imported into the United Kingdom after 1992.

  Mr. Hurd
  In our discussions with other member states of the European Community, we are maintaining the position that, given our island geography, frontier checks 504
  are, and will continue to be, an indispensible part of the protection for our citizens against the evil of drug trafficking. Sir Leon Brittan confirmed in a speech to the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs conference on 20 April that the control of drugs trafficking involves, among other things, the ability to conduct checks.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to produce new publicity material to encourage people to register to vote, in the light of the recent Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports on electoral registration.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall, as in previous years, support electoral registration officers in their statutory task with a nationwide advertising campaign during the autumn. We also plan to issue guidance to electoral registration officers on the need for a co-ordinated local publicity strategy.

  Community Trusts
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had discussions with the chief charity commissioner regarding the future development of community trusts.

  Mr. John Patten
  No, but I know that the charity commissioners played an essential part, with my Department, in promoting the community trust movement in this country by, among other things, advising on the development of model trust instruments.

  Vagrancy
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to collect more frequent statistics about the numbers of young people charged under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is currently collected on all young people proceeded against or cautioned for offences under this Act and summary statistics are published annually.

  Time Zones (Harmonisation)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his consultation document on harmonisation of time zones in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government plan to publish a Green Paper in the next few weeks. Harmonisation with the central European time zone is one of three options presented for discussion on future summer time arrangements.

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the number of mentally disordered offenders in the prison population.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The guidance in "The Sentence of the Court" is now being revised to encourage courts to
  505
  avoid sending mentally disturbed people to prison if at all possible, for example by using their powers to remand to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983, or make attendance at or admission to hospital a condition of bail. We are also preparing a circular to the police and courts on provision for mentally disturbed offenders.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has of the total cost of policing football matches in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is no central record of the costs of policing football matches. This information could be obtained only at dispropotionate cost, but substantial resources are involved. Typically 5,000 officers are deployed, at a total cost of perhaps £200,000 to £300,000, each football Saturday.

  China
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the Minister of Justice of the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House on 6 June, all scheduled ministerial visits have been suspended.

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

  Mr. John Patten
  The police give high priority to dealing with street robbery. We are concentrating resources on certain urban high-crime areas through our safer cities programme, and we have produced a crime prevention handbook which contains advice on how members of the public can reduce the risk of being attacked; nearly 2·5 million copies of it have been distributed.

  Processions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he has received in the past 12 months to make orders under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, to prohibit processions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have received four such applications during that time.

  Broadcasting Reform
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the proposals contained in his White Paper, Cm 517 to institute a regionally based privatised transmission system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We received over 3,000 responses to the broadcasting White Paper, a number of which touched on 506
  our proposals to privatise the transmission system. We published on 8 June the report commissioned from Price Waterhouse to identify options for privatisation, and we are considering its conclusions in consultation with interested parties.

  French Interior Minister
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the French Interior Minister, M. Joxe.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the French Interior Minister, M. Joxe.

  Mr. Hurd
  M. Joxe and I met on 19 May and had wide-ranging and fruitful discussions on matters of common concern, including immigration policy, action against terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime, and the measures required to maintain the necessary controls in these areas after 1992. We also signed an arrangement providing for further practical co-operation between the United Kingdom and France on all these matters.

  Firearms Committee
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to appoint a chairman of the consultative committee on firearms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 25 May at columns 637–38.

  Special Constables (Harbours)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for matters within his responsibility of the use of section 47 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to appoint special constables.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This provision has operated without major difficulty at many ports for many years. However, I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, some other hon. Members and the Police Federation following the recent use of this provision by a statutory harbour authority. My right hon. Friend has brought this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who has primary responsibility for the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. We shall jointly be examining the representations which have been made.

  Broadcasting (Ownership)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to promote diversity of ownership in television and radio broadcasting.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he proposes to ensure diversity of ownership in British television and radio.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 19 May at column 317.

  Juvenile Crime (Parental Responsibility)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage greater parental responsibility for the prevention of juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage greater parental responsibility for the prevention of juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to make parents of children under 16 years of age responsible for the crimes committed by those children.

  Mr. Patten
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 11 May at column 981.

  Prisons (Crown Immunity)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to abolish Crown immunity for prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to remove Crown immunity from penal establishments. I am satisfied that the present arrangements are effective in setting and monitoring standards required by the relevant legislation.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in police cells at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 215 on 14 June, of which 182 were held in the north of the country as a consequence of the recent loss of accommodation at Risley remand centre.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to what action the Metropolitan police are taking in enforcement of bus lanes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The enforcement of bus lanes is undertaken by the Metropolitan police as one of the many and varied demands made on police time by the enforcement of traffic law.

  European Police (Co-operation)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making in fostering greater co-operation between British police forces and their counterparts elsewhere in Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 2 February 1989 at column 384.

  Durham Prison (Transfers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Durham prison were awaiting transfer to Thorp Arch prison at the end of the last four months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is available only in respect of 31 May, when 42 prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Durham were awaiting transfer to Her Majesty's prison Thorp Arch.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against car crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are examining, in consultation with other Departments, the car manufacturing industry and other agencies, how best the recommendations of the 1988 Home Office standing conference on crime prevention working group on car crime might be taken forward. We are considering research into the correlation between car theft and road accidents, a car crime prevention video for use in schools, and the inclusion of assessments of car security features in published road tests. Publicity on the prevention of car crime will continue at a high level.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he makes of the changes in volume and types of illegal drugs in Britain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government attach high priority to tackling drug misuse in all its aspects and have developed a comprehensive strategy for that purpose, which is overseen by the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs. The group, which I chair, receives regular assessments of the drug misuse situation as it affects the United Kingdom, based on information from a number of sources.

  Prison Building
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's prison building and refurbishment programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in the campaign against drug abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Goernment's strategy is to tackle drug misuse by a number of measures aimed at reducing both the supply of and the demand for drugs.

  In furtherance of the strategy, we are working through the United Nations, the Council of Europe's Pompidou group and bilaterally to strengthen international

  509
  co-operation against drug trafficking. We have given the police and Customs services substantial new resources to enable them to seize increased amounts of drugs. We have passed the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, under which some £11 million of drug traffickers' assets has been ordered to be confiscated. Prevention, publicity and education are being stepped up, while funds for the expansion of drug misuse treatment and rehabilitation services have been increased to some £17·5 million in 1989–90.

  European Ministers of Justice
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the meeting of European Ministers of Justice in San Sebastian, Spain on 26 and 27 May.

  Mr. John Patten
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting, which discussed a range of topics of concern to European Community Ministers of Justice. I stressed the need for stronger co-operation to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers and other major criminals. I urged that the arrangements to enforce the payment of maintenance to women whose husbands moved to another Community country were not effective and should be made to work in practice. Similarly, on measures to prevent the abduction of children from one country to another, I stressed the need for practical action to help individual citizens.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his present proposals for reform of the Sunday trading laws.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government are continuing to meet interested parties to try to devise reforms which are both workable and likely to command parliamentary majority. As yet, there is insufficient agreement to support early legislation in this area.

  Fire Service (Wage Negotiations)
  Mr. Ilsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding wage negotiations for fire service employees.

  Mr. John Patten
  Fire service pay is determined by an agreement of the national joint council for local authorities' fire brigades, under which the rate of pay of qualified firefighters is adjusted in November each year to a level which equates to that for the upper quartile of male manual workers, calculated by reference to the Department of Employment's new earnings survey.

  We have received a number of representations from hon. and right hon. Members and from members of the public on conditions of service issues in the fire service. We have explained that my right hon. and noble Friend Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, has recently had a series of meetings with the member organisations of the national joint council with a view to establishing a working party to address a number of conditions of service-related issues raised by the Audit Commission and to consider whether the current pay formula represents the best way forward for the future.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote effective crime prevention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The contribution that the public can make towards reducing crime is the theme of a three-year publicity campaign which we started in March 1988; the associated crime prevention handbook, which contains a great deal of practical advice, is now in its second edition and nearly 2·5 million copies of it have been distributed. In May 1988 an independent crime prevention organisation, Crime Concern, was launched with financial support from the Home Office, with the objective of stimulating and developing local crime prevention activity. The development of crime prevention in the inner city is being taken forward through the safer cities programme which was launched in March 1988.

  Broadcasting Authorities
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet representatives of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA on a wide range of broadcasting matters.

  Burglary (Suffolk)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce burglary in central Suffolk; and it he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Neighbourhood watch continues to grow in Suffolk and there are now more than 200 schemes covering over 10,000 households. There are crime prevention panels in Ipswich, Stowmarket and Needham Market and the Mid Suffolk police liaison committee is active in spreading the crime prevention message to the rural community. In the first three months of this year burglary figures were nearly 9 per cent. lower than in the corresponding period for 1988.

  Litter
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact police anti-litter campaigns are having upon crime prevention.

  Mr. John Patten
  The police deal with litter offences in their routine enforcement of the law. I am not aware of any particular impact which this enforcement has on crime prevention.

  Metropolitan Police (Supervisions)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving Metropolitan police officers have been suspended from duty following allegations of improper conduct in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of officers suspended from duty pending investigation of alleged misconduct is as follows:
  511

  Number

  1986

  73

  1987

  95

  1988

  74

  Drinking and Disorder
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet representatives of the drinks and fast food industries to discuss problems arising from drinking and disorder.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his capacity as chairman of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, has invited representatives of the drinks, fast food and leisure industries and the licensed trade to discuss these matters. A meeting should take place later this month or early next. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I will also be present.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to safeguard the mentally ill remanded in custody.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prison medical officers in examining inmates on reception identify as a priority those who, by reason of their mental state, may require particular attention whether of a medical or general management nature. In such cases, referral to a psychiatrist would be an early course of further action.

  The police and prison services are working closely together to ensure similar early identification, and correct follow-up action can be taken in the case of a defendant who, because of overcrowding in local prisons and remand centres, is initially held in a police cell, where this cannot be avoided.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to consider the accountability and regulation of the private security industry.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to questions from the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 15 December 1988 at column 716.

  Cruel Tethering
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) males and (b) females have been (i) charged and (ii) convicted under section 1 of the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 1 of the Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 amended the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It is not possible from the information held centrally to isolate such offences from others under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a copy of the chief constable's annual report on the policing of Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received the report; I am glad to see that there was a decrease of nearly 8 per cent. in the total number of crimes recorded during the year in his force area.

  Surplus Prison Property
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about alternative uses for surplus prison property on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only representations received have been from my hon. Friend on behalf of the Isle of Wight Youth Trust. Of the 19 surplus prison quarters on the Isle of Wight, 10 are to be demolished—mainly on grounds of prison security—and nine sold.

  Hillsborough Inquiry
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department what arrangements are being made to finance the cost of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough stadium disaster.

  Mr. Hurd
  Parliamentary approval of the expenditure on this inquiry will be sought in a revised Estimate for the Home Office vote for "administration etc." (class XI, vote 3). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £100,000 is being met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Civil Disasters
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department what conclusions he has reached following his Department's review of arrangements for handling major civil disasters in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  Our emergency services have shown repeatedly how effectively they respond to widely differing disasters, but a number of suggestions have been made as to ways in which central Government could provide better support for those with operational responsibilities.

  The whole field of emergency response has therefore been reviewed. Consultations have involved the emergency services, local authorities, professional emergency planners, voluntary bodies and interested individuals, as well as other Government departments. A senior level seminar for those with operational responsibilities was held at the civil defence college, Easingwold, last November.

  Our main conclusions are:

  (a) prime responsibility for handling particular disasters should remain at the local level. It would not be helped by anything in the nature of a 'national disaster squad';

  (b) we need improved arrangements to give national oversight to the development of co-ordinated emergency planning, and to address specific practical issues raised by recent disasters;

  (c) more needs to be done to encourage and develop co-ordination of the various services at the local level.

  513
  To help meet these objectives I shall be appointing a civil emergencies adviser, charged with oversight of the whole subject and reporting directly to me. I shall announce a name as soon as I can.

  The adviser will consider matters of current concern in the field of civil emergency planning in peacetime, with a view to helping those with operational responsibilities to achieve the highest standards of co-ordination and compatibility between their contingency arrangements. He will not have an operational role during an emergency, but will be closely concerned with general questions of planning and training and with drawing out the broad lessons to be learnt from particular incidents. To achieve this he will work closely with senior officers of the emergency services, local authorities, voluntary bodies, safety inspectorates, Government Departments and others directly concerned. He will be supported by a small civil emergencies secretariat within the Home Office, working in association with the Cabinet Office. The secretariat will begin preliminary work immediately.

  A number of specific issues have been identified in the course of the review which I shall want the adviser to take forward as a matter of priority. These include the handling of casualty inquiries, psychological damage to survivors and relatives, assistance for foreign disasters, training and exercises. He may wish to draw on the work of existing groups which are already looking at some of the issues, or to convene interdisciplinary expert groups to address detailed questions.

  To support the adviser's work I am giving the civil defence college at Easingwold a wider remit and will expect it also to address questions of peacetime emergency planning irrespective of any wartime connections. This will be reflected in a change of name to "emergency planning college".

  In the course of the review local authorities argued strongly for a duty to be imposed on them to plan for peacetime emergencies. I have noted their views, but I am not at present convinced of the need for legislation. Much can be done without it. I will, however, keep the position under review as work progresses.

  The arrangements I have set out here do not alter the relationships or responsibilities of central Government Departments. The Department with the closest involvement acts as "lead department" co-ordinating the central Government response, organising the necessary executive action and keeping Parliament and the public informed. The lead department is supported by arrangements for collective discussion should that prove necessary. The new arrangements are complementary to existing arrangements and will provide as a new element, a central focus for the shared views and experience of the emergency services, local authorities and voluntary bodies.

  I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a more comprehensive statement about the conduct and outcome of the review.

  Bail
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if magistrates will be able to impose the condition of participation in electronic surveillance schemes without the defendant's consent:

  (2) if the consent of the defendant will be required before a condition of bail is imposed by a magistrates' court in England and Wales.
  514
  Mr. John Patten
  The defendant's consent to a condition of bail is not required under the Bail Act 1976, and the Government have no plans to alter the Act in this respect. The trials of electronic monitoring will, however, proceed on the basis that in each case the willingness of the defendant to participate in the scheme will be established before the equipment is installed.

  Fire Authorities (Grants)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details for each fire authority of the amounts of grant aid paid towards(a) salary costs, (b) training costs and (c) other costs in respect of each brigade emergency planning staff officer in 1986–87.

  Mr. John Patten
  The amounts of grant aid paid in respect of each brigade emergency planning staff officer for 1986–87 are given in the table. Training costs are not separately identified in records of grant paid.

  Fire authority

  Salary costs

  Training and other costs

  Avon

  8,979

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  14,190

  1,424

  Buckinghamshire

  14,255

  1,328

  Cambridgeshire

  16,818

  292

  Cheshire

  19,003

  831

  Cleveland

  14,402

  2,129

  Clwyd

  17,240

  1,160

  Cornwall

  16,446

  366

  Cumbria

  19,181

  2,506

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  Devon

  14,837

  3,206

  Dorset

  15,194

  67

  Durham

  18,024

  1,996

  Dyfed

  10,454

  2,767

  Essex

  20,127

  1,488

  Mid-Glamorgan

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  10,491

  948

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  18,641

  2,553

  Hampshire

  15,027

  3,934

  Hereford and Worcester

  17,397

  1,292

  Hertfordshire

  11.917

  2,294

  Humberside

  16,100

  1,916

  Isle of Wight

  13,210

  1,336

  Kent

  13,740

  3,116

  Lancashire

  16,999

  14

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  16,913

  —

  London

  12,012

  4,968

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  12,448

  2,588

  Northamptonshire

  15,849

  3,116

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  16,193

  4,428

  Oxfordshire

  11,746

  2,018

  Powys

  14,144

  579

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  Somerset

  21,157

  414

  Staffordshire

  13,771

  1,575

  Suffolk

  10,833

  255

  Surrey

  16,571

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  12,342

  4,837

  Tyne and Wear

  17,381

  2,563

  Warwickshire

  10,418

  1,987

  Wiltshire

  15,139

  2,966

  North Yorkshire

  9,825

  852

  515

  Fire authority

  Salary costs

  Training and other costs

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  14,626

  2,475

  Civil Defence College, Easingwold
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of proposed expenditure in 1989–90, 1990–91 and future years on(a) the construction of a new lecture theatre at the civil defence college, Easingwold and (b) the refurbishment and upgrading of the bedroom annexes at the civil defence college, Easingwold; and if he will make a statement upon the future programme at the civil defence college.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows:

  £000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  New Lecture Theatre

  285

  471

  452

  Bedroom Annex

  105

  75

  NIL

  Construction and refurbishment programmes at the college are planned on the basis of need and the availability of funding.

  District Authorities (Civil Defence Grants)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amounts of Home Office civil defence grant aid paid to each of the district authorities employing emergency planning staff funded by such grant for each year from 1979–80 to the present.

  Mr. John Patten
  Civil defence grant in respect of expenditure incurred by district authorities is normally claimed on their behalf by the relevant county or fire and civil defence authority. No records are held of the amounts in respect of individual districts.

  Regional Fire Advisers
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements to place in the Library of the House the minutes of, and any papers relating to, regional fire advisers meetings since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. It is not normal practice for the papers relating to such meetings to be placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has the report commissioned by midlands local authorities to consider the electrification of the midland main line; what representations he has received from Leicestershire's Conservative county councillors about its recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have not seen the report commissioned by a group of local authorities into the midland main line,516
  though I receive representations about the line from time to time. Services and journey times along the line have recently been substantially improved, and BR plans to improve them further when rolling stock becomes available from the east coast main line, following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 12 June of additional rolling stock. It is for British Rail to propose electrification schemes where it believes that they would be worthwhile. The midland main line is not presently due for reinvestment.

  Taxis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke on 10 April Official Report, column 409, whether he now has plans to bring forward legislation to abolish the power of local authorities to restrict the number of taxis which might be operated in their area.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on 11 May at column 488.

  Marine Radio Navigation
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of marine radio navigation in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Channon
  I am today publishing a consultative document entitled "The Future of Marine Radionavigation in United Kingdom Waters" which seeks the views of the marine community about decisions needed on the land-based system of radio navigation to be provided in United Kingdom waters into the next century. In essence the choice appears to be between continuing with the present Decca navigator system, which is operated by Racal Decca Marine Navigation Ltd. under contract to the general lighthouse authorities, or adopting a system known as Loran C as part of an international co-operative venture. The consultative document sets out the considerations to be weighed and reaches a provisional view favouring participation in the Loran C project. I have, however, not yet reached a firm conclusion and I am inviting views from all interested parties. These should be sent to the Department of Transport not later than 11 September. I expect to take a decision later this year taking account of the responses received and the position reached on the current international discussions on the Loran C option. If my decision were to be in favour of the Loran C system, this would be contingent on a formal memorandum of understanding being concluded between the participating countries.

  Copies of the consultative document have been placed in the Library.

  London Underground (Exit Gates)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether London Underground Limited has reported to him on progress with work on the Underground ticketing system to ensure that exit gates open automatically in the event of a single phase power failure.
  517
  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground informs me that the work has been completed some two weeks ahead of schedule and assures me that all the gates will now spring open automatically if there is a power failure of any sort.

  A16 (Improvement)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress being made with the A 16 Spalding to Sutterton road improvement scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We intend to publish draft orders for the A16 Spalding to Sutterton improvement this summer. We had hoped to do so earlier.

  London Underground (Automatic Barriers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, further to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 112, about the cost of installing automatic ticket barriers at London Underground stations, he will indicate (i) the revised costs when the full cost of the computer is included, and (ii) what proportion of the cost of computers could be attributed to the purpose of running the automatic ticket gates.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information in the form requested is not held in the Department. May I suggest that the hon. Member writes to the chairman of London Underground.

  Lichfield—Redditch Cross-city Line
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 7 June, if' he will investigate the reasons why he has not yet received British Rail's submission for the electrification of the cross-city line from Lichfield to Redditch via Birmingham New Street; if he will publish in the Official Report copies of relevant correspondence between his Department and British Rail; and if he will now make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The position is described in my replies of 6 June to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) which included a summary of discussions between British Rail and the Department. Since these meetings, I understand that British Rail carried out further work on engineering and financial matters. I expect a formal submission shortly.

  Buses (Exit Mechanisms)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what commitment, including provision of finance, Her Majesty's Government have received from London Regional Transport of the extension of its safe centre exit door mechanisms to all buses; what is his estimate of the date when this is likely to be achieved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have not received such a proposal from London Regional Transport or London Buses Ltd. However, I understand that London Buses is currently testing a safety mechanism which automatically reopens bus doors if they come into contact with an obstruction when closing.

  Safety is the Department's and LRT's highest priority. The Department has recently issued for comment draft
  518
  regulations which include provisions to reduce the risk of people being trapped in power-operated bus doors. The consultation period ended on 31 May and responses are now being considered.

  London Underground (Disabled People)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make representations to the chairman of London Regional Transport to change its policy so that prior permission is not required for individuals confined to a wheelchair to use London Underground provided they are accompanied by an able-bodied person; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Existing regulations are for the protection and convenience of disabled passengers. I understand that passengers in wheelchairs may use the surface and sub-surface Underground lines and need only advise staff at their local station of their wish to travel. Prior notice is necessary so that staff can ensure that there are no local difficulties preventing easy wheelchair access, and can give assistance if required.

  Buses (Concessionary Fares)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 26 April about concessionary fares on buses, stating that it is for local authorities to decide whether to make any changes in their present arrangements, represents a change from the pledges made by Her Majesty's Government during the passage of the London Regional Transport Act assuring the continuance of the free fares system for pensioners in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There has been no change in the Government's stance on concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and blind Londoners. The present concessionary scheme in London is voluntarily agreed between the London boroughs. It is primarily a local authority decision as to what concessions are provided; that is no change from the position prior to the passage of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. However, this is underpinned in law by a reserve scheme which guarantees free travel should the boroughs fail to agree voluntarily upon a uniform Londonwide scheme.

  London Underground (Rolling Stock)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the railway inspectorate has examined any proposal for new Underground rolling stock submitted to them by London Underground Ltd. which would provide for(a) fewer seats or (b) more people to stand, than the current carriages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The railway inspectorate is currently considering London Underground Ltd's specification for replacing rolling stock on the Central line. This shows slightly fewer seats per train than existing stock and more space for standing passengers. The capacity of the replacement stock is not directly a matter for the inspectorate, which is principally concerned with its safety of operation.

  London Transport (Passenger Attacks)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reported attacks there have been on passengers on London transport(a) buses and (h) Underground trains in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Assaults on passengers on buses in London are dealt with by the Metropolitan police. London Regional Transport does not maintain a central statistical record of such assaults. The numbers of recorded assaults on passengers on London Underground in each of the four years were:

  Year

  Numbers

  1985

  467

  1986

  646

  1987

  635

  1988

  777

  Passenger assaults in the first quarter of 1989 were 185 which represented an 11 per cent. reduction on the figure of 207 for the same period last year. A figure for 1984 is not available.

  South London Assessment Study
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the consultant's reports on the south London assessment study; if he will outline the action that will be followed by his Department after these reports have been considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultant's report is expected late this summer. The results of the study will be published. There will be a period for public comment and discussion before decisions are taken. Subsequent action will depend on the measures adopted.

  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 consulation with, or the approval of Devon county council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 June 1989, c. 338]: When the routes for the M5 were originally investigated the choice lay between a route to the east and south and one to the north and west of Exeter. This was before the advent of public consultation and the then local authorities would have been consulted in confidence. I am sorry if my previous reply was not as full as my hon. Friend would have liked.

  M20
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now state when he intends to let the contract for the Charing Heath to Ashford section of the M20 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 14 June.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long, following his recent announcement that the proposed Birmingham relief road will now be subject to a competition for the private sector to finance, design, build and operate, he envisages this process will take; when he expects to publish the report of the inspector to the public inquiries; how much money has already been spent on compensation for the previously announced preferred route; and how many claims for compensation relating to the previously preferred route are currently under negotiation.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government want to see the road constructed as quickly as possible, and will announce a timetable for the competition as soon as possible. A decision on the inspector's report will be announced when the competition has taken place.

  The compensation provisions do not come into force until the statutory orders for the scheme have been made. The Department has bought a number of properties under planning blight, costing approximately £2·3 million. A further nine cases are currently being processed.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his Department's estimate of the cost to date of the work carried out by Sir Owen Williams and Partners and the estimated cost of any further contractual commitments with Sir Owen Williams and Partners relating to the previously preferred route for the Birmingham relief road.

  Mr. Portillo
  A number of specialist firms and consultants have been employed in the preparation of' the Birmingham northern relief road. The total cost so far is about £10 million. The work done is not abortive; the information gathered will be made available to the private sector. The future role of Sir Owen Williams and Partners is still under discussion.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will consider claims for compensation towards the legal costs of individuals, companies and local authorities represented at the public inquiry relating to the previously preferred route for the Birmingham relief road.

  Mr. Portillo
  Claims for compensation towards the legal costs of individuals, companies and local authorities represented at the public inquiry for the Birmingham northern relief road will be dealt with in accordance with the normal practice once a decision on the scheme has been announced.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's estimated costs to date for the previously preferred route for the Birmingham relief road; what are his Department's estimated costs to date of the various public inquiries relating to the previously preferred route; and if he will estimate his Department's costs in implementing the competition for the road.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers already given on costs. The Department is unable to disaggregate its own internal running costs to individual schemes. We are not able to give details of the indirect
  521
  costs of public inquiries, such as departmental staff costs. The direct costs, such as accommodation were about £39,000.

  It is too early to estimate what the costs of implementing the competition will be. Much will depend on how many bids are received and the nature of those bids.

  Minibus Drivers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), on 15 May,Official Report, columns 10–11, what progress he has made towards securing the withdrawal of the draft European Community proposals relating to licensing of minibus drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 12 June at column 331.

  Blackburn Southern Bypass
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been made in the route of the Blackburn southern bypass of the M65 since the proposal in 1977.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since 1977 there have been changes in the route of the bypass at Brindle and Guide and a shift in alignment at Knuzden Brook. Last year we announced that the bypass would be extended westwards to link to the A585 and to Bamber Bridge bypass.

  Emergency Routes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement in respect of his emergency transport plan "Main Road Route System", and the various major roads in England and Wales designated with military code names Hen, Mole, Moth, Newt, Pig, Tiger. Vole, Worm and Yak.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any plans exist in the Hong Kong Administration for enacting a Bill of Rights and incorporating the international covenant on civil and political rights into domestic law during the transitional period to 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The international covenant on civil and political rights was extended to Hong Kong, with certain reservations, in 1976. It is at present implemented in Hong Kong, as in the United Kingdom, through a combination of common law, legislation and administrative rules. We are now considering with the Hong Kong Government as a matter of priority whether to enact a human rights ordinance, and if so, what form it should take.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what exceptions to aspects of the joint declaration have been excluded from the proposed second draft of the proposed Basic Law for Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest draft of the Basic Law repeats many provisions of the joint declaration word for word. However, there are undoubtedly other areas where improvements would be welcome in Hong Kong. Consultation on the draft Basic Law has been temporarily suspended in Hong Kong. When consultation resumes, Hong Kong people will no doubt wish to continue to express their views.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests were received from the People's Republic of China seeking a postponement of direct elections to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong; what information he has as to the view of the People's Republic of China authorities as to the implementation of reforms to the political system in Hong Kong prior to the promulgation of the Basic Law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Chinese Government made clear their view that any changes introduced in Hong Kong Government's 1988 White Paper on the development of representative government should be compatible with the Basic Law to be promulgated in 1990.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures have been taken to ensure that the high degree of autonomy promised for the special administrative region by the People's Republic of China authorities will be effected; what sanctions exist should that autonomy not be granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong is provided for in the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984, an international agreement binding under international law. We have the right to satisfy ourselves that the Basic Law fully and faithfully reflects the provisions of the joint declaration. We intend to live up to our commitments under the joint declaration and we look to the Chinese to do the same.
  524
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the power of independent and final adjudication of the Basic Law of the special administrative region of Hong Kong will vest in the territory's courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Sino-British joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong provides that the courts of the future special administrative region shall exercise judicial power independently and free from any interference, and that the power of final judgment shall be vested in the court of final appeal in Hong Kong. These provisions are reflected in articles 81 and 84 of the latest draft of the Basic Law.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent events in the People's Republic of China, he will consider ordering direct elections for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong; if a fully and directly elected legislature will be achieved prior to 1 July 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the light of recent events in China, and evidence of a change of opinion in Hong Kong, we and the Hong Kong Government are taking a careful look at the programme for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will suspend all extradition of prisoners to Hong Kong where there is a possibility of the extradited person being handed over to the People's Republic of China authorities on 1 July 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans to suspend the return of fugitives to Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can only order the return of a fugitive when all court proceedings in the United Kingdom have been concluded. If a fugitive offender is returned to Hong Kong under the Fugitive Offenders Act before 1997, that will be for an offence against Hong Kong laws. It will not be for offences against the laws of the PRC. The case will be heard by the Hong Kong courts. Under the joint declaration, Hong Kong will retain its separate legal system after 1997, and will not be relying on the PRC criminal code.

  Mr. Ali Ghavami
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is any financial or contractual relationship between Mr. Ali Ghavami, formerly an information officer at the Iranian embassy in London, and his Department in relation to his work in west Africa and elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There is no relationship between Mr. Ghavami and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

DEFENCE

  Military Command Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is currently being planned or acted upon to update the United Kingdom's redevelopment and
  525
  replacement of subordinate military command centres; what rank of people and personnel will use them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume that the surbordinate military command centres to which the hon. Member is referring are the area flag officers' headquarters, the Army district headquarters and the RAF group headquarters in the United Kingdom. There are no plans to replace these. A number of works programmes relating to them are at various stages of planning. It is not our practice to give details of the ranks of personnel stationed at particular locations.

  Naval Headquarters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the plans for the(a) Royal Naval headquarters at Northwood and (b) Pitreavie castle, Fife; what ranks of personnel and people will be stationed at them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the functions of these headquarters are as follows:

  Northwood is the headquarters of Commander-in-Chief Fleet, who also fills the NATO appointments of Commander-in-Chief Channel and Commander-in-Chief Eastern Atlantic; and of the Air Officer Commanding 18 group, who also fills the NATO appointments of Commander Air Eastern Atlantic and Commander Air Channel.

  Pitreavie is the headquarters of Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland, who both also fill NATO sub-area appointments relating to the Channel and Eastern Atlantic areas.

  It is not our practice to give details of the ranks of personnel stationed at particular locations.

  RAF Headquarters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the plans for the Royal Air Force headquarters at(a) High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire and (b) Stanmore, Middlesex; what ranks of people and personnel will be stationed there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the functions of these headquarters are as follows:

  High Wycombe is the headquarters of the Air Oficer Commander-in-Chief, RAF Strike Command, who also fills the NATO appointment of Commander-in-Chief UK Air.

  RAF Bentley Priory, which I assume the hon. Member has in mind when he refers to Stanmore, is the headquarters of Air Officer Commanding 11 group, and of the Royal Observer Corps.

  It is not our practice to give details of the ranks of personnel stationed at particular locations.

  Land Forces Headquarters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the current plans for the war headquarters of the Army's United Kingdom land forces 526
  command at Hawthorn, Wiltshire; what ranks of people and personnel will be stationed there; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the plans for the war headquarters of the Army's United Kingdom land forces command at Sopley, Hampshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The headquarters of United Kingdom land forces is at Wilton. It is not our practice to comment on the existence or otherwise of particular contingency plans relating to the outbreak of hostilities.

  Nuclear Weapons (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans his Department has for dealing with an accident involving(a) any seaborne, (b) any airborne or (c) any landborne nuclear weapon, in the course of non-operational activities, including courtesy calls in England and Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has contingency plans to deal with a wide range of possible accidents involving nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. These are kept continuously under review and are tested regularly in exercises. Other Government Departments, local authorities and the civil emergency services are consulted where appropriate, and participate in exercises.

  No. 2 Signals Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) present and (b) future role of No. 2 Signals Brigade; how many personnel and of what rank the brigade contains; where it will be stationed during (i) 1989, and (ii) 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of 2 Signals Brigade is the provision of communications. The brigade has its headquarters at Corsham, Wiltshire and is currently stationed at 192 further locations. It is not our practice to give details of the strengths of operational formations.

  Combat Body Armour
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has invited manufacturers to tender for the supply of combat body armour for general issue; and if combat body armour will be introduced into general service in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Modifications were required to the original design in the light of experience during the troop trials. A further trial of the modified design is now taking place and should be completed shortly.

  Manufacturers have not yet been invited to tender for the supply of combat body armour for general issue. Its introduction into general service is now expected to begin in 1990.

  Greenham Common
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the rights of commoners at Greenham common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 29 April 1988 at columns
  527
  310–11. Negotiations are taking place over the extinguish-ing of rights of common in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures.

  Exercises (West Germany)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations have been received from West German local governments in the past year concerning environmental damage by the British Army during exercises; if he will make a statement on the views expressed; and if he will outline the actions taken in the light of these representations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the past year, four representations were received from West German land governments about environmental damage caused by British troops during exercise; all have now been satisfactorily resolved. At lower level, there are frequent exchanges with stadt authorities about matters of mutual concern, and frequent meetings between civil and military authorities at which environmental matters are often discussed.

  BAOR takes its obligation to protect the environment very seriously. All representations from local government in Germany are given careful and sympathetic consideration. Environmental issues are taken into account during the planning and conduct of exercises, and exercise play is adapted to meet local concerns where this can be done without unacceptable operational penalties. Some damage is, however, an unavoidable consequence of military training. Specific incidents are always fully investigated and a formal response made to any complaints. Well-established machinery exists for the quick processing of any claims.

  Budgeting loans and community care grants for the Doncaster and Mexborough areas: Numbers and percentages by client group

  Budgeting Loans

  Community Care Grants

  Doncaster East

  Doncaster West

  Wath on Dearne

  Doncaster East

  Doncaster West

  Wath on Dearne

  ILO

  ILO

  ILO

  ILO

  ILO

  ILO

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent

  Unallocated or unidentified

  7

  0·3

  5

  0·2

  7

  0·3

  0

  0·0

  3

  0·7

  1

  0·3

  Over 80—with Income Support higher pensioner premium

  7

  0·4

  5

  0·2

  1

  0·7

  7

  2·3

  2

  0·5

  2

  0·7

  Aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  9

  0·6

  8

  0·3

  10

  2·4

  12

  3·6

  15

  3·5

  7

  2·4

  Aged 60–79— with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  65

  4·1

  64

  2·9

  42

  7·3

  34

  10·4

  38

  9·1

  21

  7·3

  Lone parent with Income Support disability premium

  2

  0·1

  3

  0·1

  14

  3·1

  2

  0·6

  1

  0·2

  9

  3·1

  Family with disability premium

  33

  2·1

  35

  1·6

  100

  7·0

  13

  3·9

  7

  1·7

  20

  7·0

  Other with disability premium

  39

  2·4

  63

  2·9

  47

  11·5

  22

  6·8

  19

  4·4

  34

  11·5

  Lone parent without disability premium

  645

  40·5

  832

  38·1

  462

  23·0

  88

  26·5

  159

  37·7

  67

  23·0

  Signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium

  5

  0·3

  13

  0·6

  16

  0·3

  2

  0·6

  5

  1·2

  1

  0·3

  Signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  38

  2·4

  50

  2·3

  19

  1·0

  10

  2·9

  6

  1·5

  4

  1·0

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  470

  29·5

  603

  27·7

  326

  18·5

  65

  19·7

  85

  20·2

  54

  18·5

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  228

  14·3

  432

  19·8

  303

  18·1

  55

  16·5

  56

  13·3

  53

  18·1

  Others with family premium

  8

  0·5

  23

  1·0

  15

  3·1

  6

  1·9

  5

  1·2

  9

  3·1

  Others without family premium

  41

  2·6

  48

  2·2

  62

  3·5

  12

  3·6

  17

  4·0

  10

  3·5

  Involved in trade dispute

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Applicant not in receipt of Income Support— not applicable for budgeting loans

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  2

  0·6

  2

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  n/a = not applicable.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15

  Mr. Alan Thomas (Bonus)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his reply of 24 April,Official Report, column 367, how the performance bonus of the head of defence export services designate, Mr. Alan Thomas, will be calculated.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As with other performance increments at senior levels in the Civil Service, this will be assessed judgmentally. The assessment will be made, within an annual maximum of £25,000, by senior officials, with Treasury representation.

  Submarine Crews (Training)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter, dated 12 May on the subject of the training of submarine crews.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 June 1989.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number and percentage of(a) budgetary loans and (b) community care grants awarded to the 15 client groups defined by his Department for each of the departments of social security serving Doncaster and Mexborough areas in the county of South Yorkshire for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table contains the provisional figures for the period 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  client groups defined by his Department for each of his Department's two offices serving the Coventry area for the financial year 1988–89.
  529
  Mr. Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 June 1989]: Estimates of the proportions of budgeting loans and community care grants awarded to client groups for the period 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 are given in the table.

  Budgeting loans and community care grants for Coventry (East) and Coventry (West) percentage by client group 1988–89

  Per cent.

  Client Group

  Budgeting Loans

  Community Care Grants

  Coventry

  Coventry

  Coventry

  Coventry

  (East) ILO

  (West) ILO

  (East) ILO

  (West) ILO

  Unallocated or unidentified

  0·4

  0·4

  0·0

  1·3

  Over 80—with income support higher pensioner premium

  0·1

  0·4

  4·4

  4·5

  Aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  0·5

  0·4

  2·8

  3·1

  Aged 60–79—with ordinary pensioner premium, or over 60 without pensioner premium

  2·8

  4·2

  14·0

  8·9

  Lone parent with income support disability premium

  0·3

  0·1

  0·2

  1·3

  Family with disability premium

  1·6

  2·8

  1·7

  2·2

  Other with disability premium

  4·3

  3·3

  12·0

  9·4

  Lone parent without disability premium

  46·3

  49·2

  33·4

  30·8

  Signs at UBO quarterly with Income Support family premium

  0·6

  0·7

  0·2

  0·4

  Signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  2·3

  2·1

  1·5

  2·2

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  12·5

  16·5

  2·8

  8·5

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  23·4

  16·4

  16·6

  21·9

  Others with family premium

  1·0

  0·9

  1·7

  0·9

  Others without family premium

  4·3

  2·6

  7·4

  3·6

  Involved in trade dispute

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Applicant not in receipt of income support—not applicable for budgeting loans

  n/a

  n/a

  1·1

  0·9

  n/a = not applicable.

  Personal Data (Departmental Index)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the items of personal data held in the new computerised departmental central index, the size of the index, and how many accesses were made to the index over the last two months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Each record on the departmental central index holds up to five items of information relating to one person and the index currently holds around 60 million records. The information held is the person's name, date of birth, address, sex and date of death where appropriate. Over the last two months, 1,503,485 trace and inquiry accesses were made of the system.

  Community charge benefit: net income at which minimum CCB of 50 pence is payable

  Local authority

  Annual community charge

  Single under 25 working

  Single 25 to 59 working

  Single pensioner aged 60–74 not working

  Pensioner couple aged 60–74 not working

  Couple two children under 11 working

  Alyn and Deeside

  216·00

  51·23

  58·73

  64·93

  112·84

  135·79

  Colwyn

  224·00

  52·05

  59·55

  65·75

  114·48

  137·43

  Delyn

  215·00

  51·13

  58·63

  64·83

  112·63

  135·58

  Glyndwr

  185·00

  48·05

  55·55

  61·75

  106·48

  129·43

  Rhuddlan

  201·00

  49·70

  57·20

  63·40

  109·76

  132·71

  Wrexham Maelor

  196·00

  49·18

  56·68

  62·88

  108·74

  131·69

  Carmarthen

  135·00

  42·93

  50·43

  56·63

  96·22

  119·17

  Ceredigion

  146·00

  44·05

  51·55

  57·75

  98·48

  121·43

  Dinefwr

  119·00

  41·29

  48·79

  54·99

  92·94

  115·89

  Llanelli

  150·00

  44·46

  51·96

  58·16

  99·30

  122·25

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  136·00

  43·03

  50·53

  56·73

  96·43

  119·38

  South Pembrokeshire

  166·00

  46·11

  53·61

  59·81

  102·58

  125·53

  Blaenau Gwent

  124·00

  41·80

  49·30

  55·50

  93·97

  116·92

  Islwyn

  135·00

  42·93

  50·43

  56·63

  96·22

  119·17

  Monmouth

  187·00

  48·26

  55·76

  61·96

  106·89

  129·84

  Newport

  204·00

  50·00

  57·50

  63·70

  110·38

  133·33

  Torfaen

  168·00

  46·31

  53·81

  60·01

  102·99

  125·94

  Aberconwy

  193·00

  48·87

  56·37

  62·57

  108·12

  131·07

  Community Charge Rebate
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by each charging authority in Wales the income level at which(a) a single person aged under 25 years, (h) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a single pensioner, (d) a pensioner couple and (e) a couple with two children all with no savings would lose entitlement to a community charge rebate, assuming the most recent safety-netted community charge figures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.
  531

  Local authority

  Annual community charge

  Single under 25 working

  Single 25 to 59 working

  Single pensioner aged 60–74 not working

  Pensioner couple aged 60–74 not working

  Couple two children under 11 working

  Arfon

  145·00

  43·95

  51·45

  57·65

  98·27

  121·22

  Dwyfor

  182·00

  47·75

  55·25

  61·45

  105·86

  128·81

  Meirionnydd

  182·00

  47·75

  55·25

  61·45

  105·86

  128·81

  Ynys Mon

  178·00

  47·34

  54·84

  61·04

  105·04

  127·99

  Cynon Valley

  114·00

  40·77

  48·27

  54·47

  91·91

  114·86

  Merthyr Tydfil

  131·00

  42·52

  50·02

  56·22

  95·40

  118·35

  Ogwr

  162·00

  45·70

  53·20

  59·40

  101·76

  124·71

  Rhondda

  95·00

  38·82

  46·32

  52·52

  88·02

  110·97

  Rhymney Valley

  148·00

  44·26

  51·76

  57·96

  98·89

  121·84

  Taff-Ely

  166·00

  46·11

  53·61

  59·81

  102·58

  125·53

  Brecknock

  143·00

  43·75

  51·25

  57·45

  97·86

  120·81

  Montgomery

  142·00

  43·64

  51·14

  57·34

  97·66

  120·61

  Radnor

  144·00

  43·85

  51·35

  57·55

  98·07

  121·02

  Cardiff

  200·00

  49·59

  57·09

  63·29

  109·56

  132·51

  Vale of Glamorgan

  176·00

  47·13

  54·63

  60·83

  104·63

  127·58

  Port Talbot

  151·00

  44·57

  52·07

  58·27

  99·50

  122·45

  Lliw Valley

  147·00

  44·16

  51·66

  57·86

  98·68

  121·63

  Neath

  154·00

  44·87

  52·37

  58·57

  100·12

  123·07

  Swansea

  215·00

  51·13

  58·63

  64·83

  112·63

  135·58

  1. The levels of community charge used are the illustrative safety netted figures for 1989–90 given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in reply to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 12 June 1989 at columns 303–6.

  2. The net income levels shown have been derived using the current housing benefit rates and rules for calculating net income and applicable amounts. A maximum rebate of 80 per cent., a taper of 15 per cent., and a minimum weekly rebate of 50 pence per claim have been used.

  3. The following assumptions have been made:

  (i) no claimant is disabled;

  (ii) each claimant under pension age is in full-time work;

  (iii) no claimant over pension age is working;

  (iv) each claimant with dependent children is in receipt of child benefit and, where appropriate, family credit;

  (v) each claimant has assessed capital of under £3,000.

HEALTH

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health of he will list by year for the last 10 years, the number of times a recipient receiving a transplanted organ from a donor has been infected by a disease from the donor that was not diagnosed at the time; if he will show in his answer the type of disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Comprehensive information is not collected centrally, but the number of cases of disease transmitted through transplants is believed to be very small.

  Hospital Wards (Wirral)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wards in the Wirral would be classified as deprived under the Jarman formula.

  Mr. Freeman
  Professor Jarman's index of comparative deprivation for the 22 local authority wards in the Wirral is shown in the table. This is based on a national average of zero with the large positive numbers indicating the most deprived areas and the large negative numbers the least. The index ranges nationally from + 72·95 to - 62·52.

  Jarman Index—Wirral

  Ward

  1 UPA 8 Score

  Bidstom

  +45·33

  Birkenhead

  +37·62

  Tranmere

  +32·45

  Seacombe

  +21·13

  Leasoure

  +20·20

  Upton

  +13·29

  Liscard

  +11·47

  New Brighton

  +10·00

  532

  Ward

  1 UPA 8 Score

  Bromborough

  + 9·81

  Egerton

  + 8·83

  Oxton

  + 5·01

  Claughton

  + 4·68

  Moreton

  + 3·06

  Hoylake

  -3·24

  Preston

  -4·56

  Bebington

  -5·64

  Thurstaston

  -5·66

  Eastham

  -6·87

  Wallasey

  -7·66

  Royden

  -11·98

  Clatterbridge

  -14·33

  Heswall

  -1806

  1 UPA (Under privileged area) 8 score takes account of eight variable components.

  Mental Illness and Handicap
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were discharged to the community from National Health Service mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units after a stay of one year or more in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of patients discharged to the community from National Health Service mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units in England after a stay of one year or more, for the period 1979 to 1986, the last year for which information is currently available. The table excludes death and transfers to other hospitals.
  533

  England (1979 to 1986)

  Discharges1 from mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units

  Year

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Total

  1979

  3,460

  1,178

  4,638

  1980

  3,376

  1,120

  4,496

  1981

  3,516

  1,246

  4,762

  1982

  3,465

  1,229

  4,694

  1983

  3,563

  1,457

  5,020

  1984

  3,928

  1,919

  5,847

  1985

  3,441

  2,052

  5,493

  1986

  3,751

  2,528

  6,279

  1 Excludes deaths and transfers to other hospitals.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the expert committee on microbiological safety in food has met; what topics it has discussed; and if he will refer the recent botulism outbreak to it.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The microbiological safety of food committee held its first meeting on 14 April, and has met at approximately weekly to fortnightly intervals since then. At the request of Ministers it has been looking at specific questions relating to the increasing incidence of microbiological illnesses of foodborne origin, particularly from salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. The committee has no role in the handling of acute emergencies such as the recent outbreak of botulism. Once the outbreak has been dealt with, the committee will he asked to consider and advise on its implications when formulating its recommendation on microbiological food safety.

  Day Care
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a table listing (a) the current number of day care places for the elderly per 1,000 of the population aged 65 years and over and (b) the number of day care places for the mentally handicapped per 10,000 of the population for each local authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  "Adult Training Centres for Mentally Handicapped People and Day Centres for Mentally Ill, Mentally Handicapped, Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People, at 31 March 1987—England" shows at tables A and C for each local authority, per 1,000 population of the relevant age groups, the most recent numbers of day centre places for the elderly and for the mentally handicapped and of adult training centre places for the mentally handicapped. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of day care places for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the number of day care places provided by local authority social services departments in each of the years specified. In addition, day care places are provided by mental illness and mental handicap hospitals in England, but the number of such places is not centrally collected.
  534

  Number of places provided by local authorities

  Year

  Mental illness1

  Mental handicap

  1979

  6,984

  42,061

  1980

  7,242

  42,337

  1981

  7,603

  43,627

  1982

  7,887

  45,152

  1983

  8,689

  46,558

  1984

  8,919

  47,464

  1985

  9,308

  48,824

  1986

  9,216

  50,374

  1987

  9,875

  51,732

  1 Including places made available to local authorities by voluntary or private organisations and estimates of places for mentally ill people in day centres for mixed client groups. 1987 figures are revised.

  Salmonella (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cases of salmonella poisoning reported in north Derbyshire during May.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: We understand that 61 cases of salmonella poisoning have been reported in Chesterfield, north-east Derbyshire and Mansfield. The health authority is thoroughly investigating the source of the outbreak.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Kirklees
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the estimated total payment of a couple on average earnings living in a house valued at(a) £60,000, (b) £30,000 in the area covered by Kirklees council in 1990–91 under a system of local income tax and rates based on capital values.

  Mr. Gummer
  The level of bills under a system of local income tax and rates based on capital values would depend primarily on the level of expenditure undertaken by Kirklees council and the amount of support available from Government grants and business rates. Such figures for 1990–91 are not known. However, figures were placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 showing the tax rates which would have applied in 1988–89. Based on these figures, with capital value rates providing 80 per cent. of the total raised in local domestic taxes, a couple each earning average full-time wages, and with only the minimum tax allowance, would have paid £970 in a £60,000 house and £595 in a £30,000 house.

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (Grants)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants in aid were received by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the maintenance and running costs of the three former Greater London council properties, Kenwood house, Rangers house and Marble Hill house during the financial years 1986–87; 1987–88; 1988–89 and 1989–90 in cash and real terms; and how these grants were apportioned between the three properties.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The year 1986–87 was the only one in which a separately identifiable allocation of
  535
  grant-in-aid was paid to the commission in respect of all the ex-GLC functions, including Kenwood house, Rangers house and Marble Hill house, for which it assumed responsibility; this amounted to £7·75 million in total. For subsequent years, provision for these properties was subsumed in the total grant-in-aid provision, the allocation of which is for the commission to decide. I have asked the chairman of the commission to write to my hon. Friend with the details he requests for 1986–87 and subsequent years.

  Local Authority Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each financial year between 1983–84 and 1988–89 the number of local authority direct labour organisations which have failed to meet the required rate of return under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 on capital employed when undertaking(a) general highway works and works in connection with the construction or maintenance of a sewer, (b) new construction, other than general highway or sewer works, the cost of which in the estimation of the authority or development body exceeded £50,000, (c) new construction, other than general highway or sewer works, the cost of which in the estimation of the authority or development body did not exceed £50,000 and (d) building maintenance within the meaning of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, other than in connection with highways or the maintenance of a sewer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of DLOs in England on which reports are submitted to the Department and which have failed to meet the required rate of return on capital employed under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is indicated in the table.

  I/

  II

  III

  IV

  1983–84

  18

  22

  21

  43

  1984–85

  20

  23

  12

  44

  1985–86

  21

  18

  6

  36

  1986–87

  21

  8

  5

  13

  I Highways.

  II Major Construction (over £50,000).

  III Minor Construction (under £50,000).

  IV Maintenance.

  The Department has not yet completed its examinations of DLO reports for 1987–88 and those for 1988–89 are not required to be received until 31 October 1989.

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he intends placing staff of his Department in valuation and community charge tribunal offices; and what assessment he has made as to how these placements will affect the independence of the tribunal system.

  Mr. Gummer
  A small number of staff with specialised computer skills are to assist the clerks of the valuation and community charge tribunals in the use of new computer systems. The independence of the tribunal system is not affected.

  Bed and Breakfast (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families were living in bed and breakfast accommodation in each of the London boroughs on I June 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest available figures, for the end of March 1989, appear in table 7 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the first quarter of 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  Rhinoceros Horn and Ivory
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to combat illegal trade in rhinoceros horn and ivory.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom implements the provisions of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) under which commercial trade in rhinoceros and the Indian elephant is already prohibited. The European Council of Environment Ministers agreed on 8 June to support the extension of such a ban to the African elephant. A ban on imports of ivory into the United Kingdom came into force on 9 June. All these measures help prevent illegal trading.

  Parliamentary Offices (Heating)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the heating in the parliamentary offices in which hon. Members' secretaries work is not switched on when Parliament is not sitting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Because members and staff continue to use their offices the heating is not turned off automatically at the start of a recess. This year the heating was first turned off on 8 May during the period of warm weather.

  Fauna and Flora
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will reconsider his opposition to the European Community directive on fauna, flora and habitats; what steps he proposes to take or is taking to protect endangered species of fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to support attendance by non-governmental organisations at meetings convened to discuss the implementation and management of the European Community directive 8149/88, when it is adopted.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are not opposed to the principle of Community action to protect Europe's natural heritage. However the European Commission's proposal for a directive on the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and of fauna and flora (8149/88) was unanimously rejected by member states at the Environmental Council on 24 November 1988. Instead, there was agreement that Community action could most usefully be focussed on assisting member States, as necessary, to implement fully the existing international conventions. We remain ready to discuss any sensible and practicable proposals to secure this objective.

  Local Authority Dwellings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the estimated total capital value of dwellings owned by local authorities in England and Wales and the estimated outstanding loan debt on such dwellings.

  Mr. Gummer
  Total outstanding loan debt on local authority owned dwellings in England and Wales at 31 March 1987 was approximately £25 billion. The Department does not collect information on the capital value of local authority dwellings. However, the 1986 English house condition survey estimated the total capital value of local authority stock in England and Wales at 1 November 1986 to be £123 billion, based on market value with vacant possession.

  Offshore Mineral Dredging
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the procedure that will be employed, under the recently announced review of licence applications for mineral dredging offshore to ensure that such activities are not damaging to the fish stocks, sea bird populations and marine mammals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The revised procedures for determining licence applications for minerals dredging issued earlier this year make provision for an environmental assessment (EA) to be undertaken into the application where the Crown Estate Commissioners judge this to be necessary.

  Among the criteria used to assess the need for an EA are the potential impact of the dredging area on a marine nature reserve; the inclusion in the dredging areas of an important fish (including shell fish) spawning area or nursery ground; or whether the dredging area is within an area which supports a known important commercial fishery. A copy of the revised procedures is available in the Library.

  These new procedures reflect the important role which marine sand and gravel play in maintaining supplies to the construction industry whilst recognising the need to safeguard sea fisheries and the marine environment.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce new legislation to safeguard listed buildings where redevelopment is proposed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. We are satisfied that existing legislation provides an adequate framework for the protection of listed buildings.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those schemes in the City of London which he has approved since June 1987 which would allow developers to pull down listed buildings;

  (2) if he will list those schemes which he has approved since June 1987 which would allow developers to pull down five or more grade 2 listed buildings to enable redevelopment to go ahead.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  538
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out the criteria he uses to determine whether listed buildings should be retained in applications for redevelopment;

  (2) if, in the light of his decision to allow redevelopment of the Mappin and Webb site in the City of London, he will make a statement on his policy as regards preserving listed buildings.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's policy and criteria in respect of the protection of listed buildings are set out in DoE circular 8/87.

  Immigrating Birds (Protected Species)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure the adequate protection of immigrating birds of protected species.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act provides a statutory framework for the protection of all wild birds in Great Britain including those who migrate here from overseas. Where appropriate, further action is taken through the classification of special protection areas under article 4 of EC directive 79/409 EEC.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he follows in determining appeals against refusal for import licences under CITES; how many such applications have been made in each of the last three years; and of these how many were approved.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Applications for import licences are decided on their merits, in the light of advice from our scientific advisers and in accordance with the requirements of EC regulation 3626/82 which implements the convention on international Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) within the European Community. There is no statutory right of appeal against the refusal of an import licence, but if new evidence is presented the Department is normally willing to reconsider applications which have been refused. The Department has no record of the number of applications which have been reconsidered.

  Submarine Base, Faslane
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the length of delay in the construction of the ship lift in the Clyde submarine base at Faslane; what penalty clauses exist in the contract; and if any of these clauses have been invoked.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on Tuesday 23 May at column 497. The contract does not contain penalty clauses, but liquidated damages may be invoked once a contract completion data has been passed. For commercial reasons it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Air Transport: EC Council Meeting
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on the air matters discussed at the meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers Council held on 5th June including progress made on aviation matters outside formal Council meetings; and whether the Commission has made any comment on the paper setting out government objectives for 1990.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am pleased to inform the House, and in particular the noble Baroness, that the Council of Ministers adopted three aviation measures at its meetings on 5th June. These were: (a) a regulation governing the operation of computerised reservation systems; (b) an amendment to the Inter-Regional Air Services Directive; and (c) a resolution on air traffic system capacity problems. We believe that the Commission will be taking account of our paper in formulating. its proposals for further liberalisation in 1990.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am delighted that at last the Minister has some good news to report. However, perhaps I may refer to one of the measures mentioned in his reply and one which I suggest is the most important. It concerns the resolution dealing with air traffic capacity and congestion. Can the Minister say whether the resolution is not as strongly worded as some Ministers had hoped? Further, can he say whether the Government agree that a unified air traffic control system in Europe is now of the utmost urgency? Can he also say what is being done to persuade other European governments to give their support to this measure?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, so far as concerns the noble Baroness's first question, the Government are entirely content with the wording of the resolution, which was unanimously agreed by the Transport Council on 5th June. In answer to her suggestion as regards a unified air traffic control system, the Government feel that the establishment of such a system would divert energies away from the priority tasks and cause major disruption. It is not at all clear whether it would be practicable; it certainly could not be achieved in the short term.
However, we need to move rapidly in harmonising the European air traffic control systems and improving co-ordination among them. That will be the next best thing to a unified system. Central flow management will be a major step forward and I
1512
hope that we shall approve Eurocontrol's detailed implementation plan next month.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that during a previous exchange of questions I referred to a consultation document issued by the CAA (CAP 548) in which the issue of air capacity congestion was stressed as being a most important item? I expressed the concern that many European countries seemed to lack a sense of urgency in dealing with the matter. I mention that fact because it has now been suggested that delays this year will be due to the lack of adequate aircraft through the grounding of the Boeing planes.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount has either heard or had brought to his attention a statement made in the holiday programme "Breakaway" which was screened last Saturday. It was suggested that delays are inevitable this year because of the failure of some European states to introduce flow management; the lack of adequate control staff in some European states; the lack of training; and also the lack of adequate salaries. They seem to me to be important matters which ought to be considered by the European Ministers.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that was rather a lengthy question and I hope that the House will forgive me if I give a rather lengthy answer because I think that this is a most important matter. In March, ICAO experts agreed on a new traffic orientation system which will spread traffic on the busiest European routes more evenly over the European ATC network. European states are co-operating to make certain weekend routes available, in agreement with military authorities, at peak traffic periods on weekdays.
Conference communications facilities came into operation in April among the air traffic co-management units of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK and have already made significant improvements to flow management in Europe. The problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, arose from shortages of air traffic controllers and industrial action outside the UK. All countries are actively engaged in training more controllers, but that cannot be done overnight. I cannot comment on industrial problems in other countries. However, I am satisfied that the authorities concerned are doing everything they can to tackle the causes.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the answer which the Minister gave to my supplementary question. First, do I understand that the resolution dealing with air traffic capacity and so on was worded strongly enough for the British Government? Secondly, I do not know whether it is a matter of semantics, but am I correct in thinking that the Minister said that co-operation in air traffic control was the next best thing to a unified air traffic control system? Thirdly, as I understand that all the airlines are asking for a unified air traffic control system in Europe, can he enlarge upon the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said that a unified air traffic control system would take a long time to install and that it would create a lot of disruption in the meantime. Therefore, as the noble Baroness rightly understood, the next best thing is to harmonise and co-ordinate among all the countries involved. I also said in my reply that the Government are entirely content with the wording of the resolution.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that it would be better to be pressing in the long term for the best system rather than the second best?
Viscount Davidson: On balance, my Lords, no.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene yet again in this matter, but do the noble Viscount's answers mean that the British Government have less faith in the development of Eurocontrol? I understood that that was the position from a recent answer which I was given. During that exchange I praised the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for the work that he has done on Eurocontrol.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that it is a matter of semantics; the Government are fully in favour of Eurocontrol and its expansion. However, that is not exactly the same as a unified system, which is what I understood the noble Baroness to be referring to.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not correct that the airlines have asked for a unified air traffic control system in Europe? Further, can the Minister clarify the matter with the airlines or perhaps by means of a Written Answer to the House?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes; I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Social Security Policy
3.13 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will explain the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services (House of Commons Official Report, 17th May 1989, col. 328) that "being cost-effective does not necessarily mean giving a better, but rather a more efficient, service", and whether it represents their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, our policy is to ensure that the Department of Social Security provides a good service for the public, both as customers and as taxpayers, in the most cost-effective way. My right honourable friend's remarks to which the noble Earl refers were simply intended to illustrate that it is possible to provide the same level of service more cost-effectively by improving the efficiency of the operation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I want to ask him about the meaning attached by Ministers to the word "efficient". While I accept that his reply is within the limits of common usage, does he agree that the word "efficient" is more commonly used to mean something synonymous with providing a better service, even without a reduction in unit costs? Can he give me any recent examples of government Statements in which the word "efficient" is used in that sense?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the best way that I can help the noble Earl is by pointing out that we have a responsibility to the general public, both as taxpayers and as customers. We need to ensure delivery of the best service possible in the most economical way. It is not realistic to provide a service regardless of cost.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the possibility that a better service might be more efficient and that an efficient service might also be better?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton. Once one has achieved improved efficiency in the service there will be spin-offs for the beneficiaries of that service.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is it not a fact that the words to which the noble Earl referred were used in the context of an announcement made in another place by the Minister that the Government propose to privatise certain aspects of social security work? Why should the Government think that there will be a better or more efficient service when it is handed away from his department's professional staff?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is only half right. The words about which the noble Earl complained were read in connection with a Statement made in another place but not, as the noble Baroness said, repeated in the House.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I did not say that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Statement was about a proposal to split the social security structure into a number of agencies. That is not—I repeat this firmly—a step towards privatisation. Options for privatisation and contracting out were explored fully before agencies were decided upon. It was concluded that total privatisation or contracting out were impractical. A good deal of the department's work, especially in the computing area, is already contracted out. The department and its agencies will continue to test the market for opportunities for cost-effective administration through contracting out. That will be investigated thoroughly in appropriate areas. I must emphasise that that is not privatisation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that one of the definitive uses of the term "efficient" is in the context of power stations, heat engines and so on, where efficiency is the energy

1515
one gets out provided by the energy one puts in? What is the exact analogy between that and the way one administers a social system?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this country's social security system is based upon local office operation. Clearly, the more management effort one puts in and the better training one has, the more efficiently an office will run.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the Minister's explanation of the word gives the impression, which I am sure is wrong, that the Government might regard a worse public service as being cost-effective.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in my original Answer I tried hard not to give that impression because it is not what my right honourable friend intended to convey on that occasion.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what steps is the Minister's department taking to ensure that social security officers make the right decision the first time and that the department becomes more cost-effective because there are fewer appeals and tribunals that have to be attended?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one of the ways in which we are seeking to provoke—if that is the correct word—efficiency is to establish targets, such as those to which the noble Countess referred, in the various areas. The objective is to give a concrete and practical expression of our intention to deliver a high standard of service in accordance with our definition, and to improve standards of performance where necessary. It may interest the House to know that I have arranged for those targets to be put in the Library.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the Nazi concentration camps were extremely efficient but that there are other criteria to be borne in mind in deciding upon desirability?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that the House will appreciate the reference to Nazi concentration camps with regard to this subject. However, it is important to get the structure right because if one does not do that one cannot pay benefits efficiently and give a good service to the public.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in future when the Government offer us a more efficient service will they please tell us whether they also mean a better one? If they do not tell us so, may we assume that they do not?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Earl is becoming rather deep and devious for me. I have advised the House of what my right honourable friend intended to convey, and I do not think that I can usefully advise it any further.

"Crack": Drug Misuse
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the spread in the United Kingdom of the drug known as "crack".
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are very concerned about the growing threat from cocaine and the insidious nature of cocaine in the crystalline form known as "crack". Many of the existing initiatives, which have been taken under the Government's comprehensive strategy for tackling drug misuse, already have an impact on the misuse of cocaine and crack. Measures, which are specifically aimed at cocaine, include law enforcement-related assistance in Latin America and the setting up of customs teams to combat cocaine smuggling. The ministerial group on the misuse of drugs will be considering the scope for further action.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. In dealing with this diabolical substance, which is new to this country, will the Government take into account especially the inner cities? It is there that the easiest markets will exist in the eyes of the drug traders who hope to make fortunes and who, in the United States, have been using children as their street peddlers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to that. We shall certainly see that his views are taken into account. I assure him that the Government are most concerned about the possible rise in and effects from crack. Four years ago in the United States it was hardly known; but it is now said to be the most serious drug in 49 states. Therefore we are very concerned that it might grow over here.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether some groups of people are more likely to use crack than others? If that is the case, would it not be wise to contact the community leaders in order to try to stop the horrifying problem which is now escalating in the United States?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the difficulty is that crack is very easy to make, being manufactured from cocaine. At present it is a very minor problem at street level. The problem is that we have to take care in any approach to public education on crack in order to avoid stimulating people to try it and use it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement made only two days ago, on Tuesday 13th June, by his colleague Mr. Eggar, at a meeting at the Home Office? The statement was:
"Crack is by far the single greatest threat that faces the United Kingdom. It is worse in its social implications than the threat posed by any known disease".
If the noble Earl agrees with the crisis note in that statement, will he see that, at the meeting, which I

1517
understand is to be convened on 26th July, of a group of Ministers interested, high up on the agenda will be the subject of a national education and information campaign? Will he see that consideration will be given to a registration scheme? Will the necessary personnel and funds be made available on the basis of a real crisis which is to be prevented?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that my honourable friend was quite right to draw attention to the very serious nature of crack and the severe implications which it could have upon this country. Certainly, on 26th July there is a meeting of the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs which will be chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I shall see that he has the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, brought to his attention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given that the source of the substances and the means of transmission to this country are overseas, and given the very grave level of the threat, is my noble friend satisfied with the level of international co-operation being achieved in the world? Can more be done to achieve a co-ordinated battle for the preservation of the populations of many countries from this threat?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite right. It is an international problem and also a European problem. Spain and Portugal have cultural links with South America, where the cocaine originates. Spain has had the largest seizure of cocaine for any European country. At the recent Council of Europe Pompidou group meeting, chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, it was agreed that an ad hoc working party would be set up to examine the response from Europe to the cocaine threat. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that we plan to hold an international conference next year to look at ways of reducing the demand for drugs, including cocaine.
I remind my noble friend that on the international scene we give £1·8 million in order to try to encourage other countries to prevent the spread of cocaine.
Baroness David: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the DES makes money available through the education support grants to help with education about drugs in schools but that this money will be available only for one year? What are the educational plans for continuing the grants after the one year? Surely education will be needed for more than one year to cope with the problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not equipped to give the answer to the noble Baroness; but I shall find out the information and let her know about it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, have any of the peddlers of this abominable drug been arrested yet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the first three months of 1989 there were 27 seizures; there were 13 in 1988
1518
and six in 1987. So the seizures are increasing; but of course that may mean that the drugs trade is increasing, and that our perception of it and our intervention are also increasing.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree with me that one of the most bewildering and horrifying aspects of freebase cocaine, which is known as crack and is inhaled, is that the effects are felt by the user within 10 or 15 seconds? Almost invariably the effects are devastating, both psychologically and physically. They lead to untold misery for all kinds of people.
Bearing in mind what the noble Earl has said about the demand for the drug, is it not important that every effort should be made to inform people of the devastating effects of the drug, rather than being too timid about encouraging it through publicity?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has a very serious point. The difficulty is the balance between informing people of the dangers of a drug and, by so doing, stimulating them in their desire to know what it is. The noble Viscount is perfectly right that crack is a crystalline form. When the smoke is inhaled it works almost immediately. Its lasting effects are very short, whereas the effects of cocaine start later and last longer. The danger of crack is that, certainly in the United States, it is relatively cheap. But once a person is hooked on it, he requires more and more; and he requires quicker inhalations of it. It therefore becomes more expensive and more addictive.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is not the importation, by smuggling, of an anti-social drug like this a violation of our sovereignty? On the basis that what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, is it not high time that an international force sprayed defoliative drugs and chemicals on the sources of supply?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, an enormous international effort is being put into this problem. The noble Earl will know that, while certain objectives may be desirable, it is not always easy to fulfil them. Throughout the world a great effort is being put into precisely the problems about which the noble Earl is worried.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when the Minister referred so properly to the cheapness or comparative cheapness of the drug, is he not aware that the chief danger is quite obviously to our children? I am told that the drug can be obtained at a price of £2 and possibly at an extreme price of £5.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be that inflation has hit this side of the House more than the other. My understanding is that in the Linked States a "hit" of crack—I believe that is the expression—can be obtained for a few dollars and my information is that in the United Kingdom it costs between £5 and £10. The danger of that is that this market is therefore more attractive to the peddlers. So it is with cocaine, which in the United States costs £25

1519
a gramme and in the United Kingdom costs £60 to £80 a gramme. That means that those who wish to make large fortunes may well turn their attention to this country.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the United States, particularly in New York, the spread has been so great that television pictures have shown children selling crack to other children? That has made a great impression.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I imagine that it would make a great impression. That just shows what a terribly insidious drug this can be.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, bearing in mind the enormous sums of money that drug cartels have at their disposal—we are talking about many billions of pounds—and are using to market their products, compared with the relatively small sums available to the Customs and police services, and in view of the fact that, with all the goodwill that is forthcoming, there is considerable difficulty in liaison between the various police forces in the United Kingdom, and between them and Customs, will the Government consider setting up a national drug enforcement agency as the Americans have done with much success?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are keeping an acute eye on this whole problem. That is why a ministerial committee on drug misuse was set up. My noble friend will also realise that there are regional drug squads which work very effectively, and there is a co-ordinated effort between the police forces to crack down—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a rather unfortunate choice of words. However, there is a great co-ordination of effort between the police forces to deal with this terrible drug.

National Health Service Budget
3.32 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make good the shortfall of £490 million in this year's National Health Service budget which is due to inaccurate inflation0 forecasts.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this year £19 billion will be spent in our hospitals and community health services throughout the United Kingdom—£15 billion in England alone where health authorities have received cash increases averaging 9·2 per cent.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has really answered my Question, just as he did not answer the question I asked him
1520
last week. Are the Government going to make good the £490 million which is estimated by the National Association of Health Authorities to be short because inflation was not forecast correctly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rather suspected that the noble Countess was basing her figures on those of the National Association of Health Authorities. The Government consider that the figures used by the NAHA are artificial and bear no relation to what has happened in the health service. The crucial points are the amount of money put in by the taxpayer, which is over 40 per cent. more in real terms since 1978–79, and the services we provide to patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the Question about the direct effect on the funds available for health authorities as a result of inflation? Will the Minister say just what is the figure by which health authorities are going to be underfunded because of the higher rate of inflation? Does he accept that unless there is some replacement of those funds, health authorities are bound to provide a poorer service than they had planned to do? Surely the Government must do something about that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, health authorities will not be underfunded as the noble Lord has suggested. We suspect that the NAHA has used RPI to judge inflation. However, that is not the correct figure to use. The correct figure to use would be the health service index, which is a slightly lower figure—
Noble Lords: It is higher!
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is lower, not higher.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the shortfall is not £490 million, will the noble Lord tell us what is it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no shortfall.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not quite clear that if there is a higher rate of inflation health authorities are not able to buy the same amount of services or to pay the money for the same services that they would have done if the rate of inflation had been as anticipated? That being the case, surely the department must know the figure and must have taken a decision on whether or not to replace that missing money.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I stated in my first Answer, Her Majesty's Government have increased funding by 9·2 per cent. On top of that, there are further savings that health authorities themselves can make. There have also been increases to their funds made available by changes in superannuation. I believe they are now paying £287 million less.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it has been widely welcomed that the resource management initiative will help very considerably to answer the question as regards the true level of funding as well as the true required level of funding, so that future discussions on this subject

1521
will be based on agreed facts rather than on different interpretations of different facts? Such an initiative is therefore to be welcomed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remark. I hoped that our figures were generally accepted.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1989 will be taken.

Electricity Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 32 [Electricity from non-fossil fuel sources]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 165B:
Page 24, line 42, leave out from ("with") to ("and") in line 43 and insert ("the suppliers concerned, by order require each public electricity supplier in England and Wales or each such supplier in Scotland, before a day specified in the order, to make (in so far as he has not already done so)").
The noble Baroness said: It may be helpful to the Committee if, in moving this amendment, I make some general remarks about the non-fossil fuel obligation before dealing in detail with the specific amendments. I believe that would help us to deal more expeditiously with the individual amendments when we come to them.
In the White Paper Privatising Electricity, published in February last year, the Government made clear their firm commitment to a secure supply of electricity after privatisation. One means of contributing to such security is to ensure a diversity of fuel sources in electricity generation. Diversity of fuel sources has been recognised by successive governments as an important safeguard against fuel supply disruptions and price shocks. Over the past 15 years, we have experienced two oil crises as well as a number of disruptions to coal production. Over three-quarters of the fuel consumed in generating electricity in England and Wales is coal. Coal is likely to be the dominant fuel in electricity generation for some time to come, and so it is important to
1522
maintain a variety of fuel sources for generating electricity.
In addition, we are now much clearer on the environmental effect of too heavy a reliance on coal. Coal contributes to acid rain and the greenhouse effect. A diversity in fuel helps to spread the risk and reduce the cost associated with dealing with the environmental impact of any one fuel. Nuclear power and renewable sources of energy have a particular role to play in reducing the impact of increased carbon dioxide emissions.
Renewable sources of energy will also have an increasing role to play in promoting diversity. This is why our obligation is a non-fossil one, and I shall deal with our proposals for additional provisions for renewables in the second batch of government amendments. But for the foreseeable future, nuclear will have a central role to play in ensuring diversity. The Government are convinced that there is a vital strategic need for nuclear power. This Government were elected on a manifesto which contained a commitment to maintaining the nuclear programme. Nuclear power has helped us get through times of fuel disruption in the past and has a clear strategic role for the foreseeable future.
Our privatisation proposals therefore take into account the need to maintain a strong nuclear presence. The Government believe it is right to privatise nuclear power. However, it has to be recognised that it is not possible at present to leave it to the new competitive market for electricity to ensure a continuing nuclear involvement in such new capacity. At present, the cost of nuclear power in England and Wales is higher than that of fossil-generated power. This is largely due to the high reprocessing costs of Magnox stations and operational difficulties with some of the English AGRs. The economics of nuclear are, however, likely to improve significantly when the new generation of PWR stations comes on stream.
In the meantime, we believe it would be wholly wrong to throw away the experience and expertise that have been built up in this country on nuclear power, together with its contribution to fuel diversity, because of an adverse price differential which may well be only temporary.
Clause 32 therefore provides that the Secretary of State may, after consultation, require public electricity suppliers to produce evidence to the Director General of Electricity Supply showing that they have made arrangements to contract for a minimum aggregate amount of non-fossil generating capacity. This will ensure that, even if the costs of nuclear or other non-fossil capacity are higher than that of fossil generating capacity, a non-fossil generating capability will be maintained.
The obligation will be applied in England and Wales only, although it could be extended if necessary to Scotland in due course. At present, however, Scotland has a sufficient diversity in elecricity generation for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps I may explain the proposed mechanics and likely timetable. We propose that the obligation will be applied separately to each public electricity supply company by order to be made later this year.
The Magnox power stations were all constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. They are coming towards the end of their planned lives. Berkeley has already closed and the SSEB has announced plans for closure of Hunterston A. On the assumption that other Magnox stations close after a 30-year lifetime, in the absence of new capacity being constructed, non-fossil capacity will be reduced by between 3GW and 3·5GW by the year 2000. In order to maintain the existing level of diversity, the non-fossil fuel obligation will be set at levels designed to replace this by a new non-fossil capacity. Different levels may be set for different years.
The White Paper made clear that there would be no restriction on the origin of this non-fossil capacity. Renewable sources of energy will be able to make a contribution. Non-fossil capacity in Scotland, France, the AEA and BNFL are all potential sources of supply.
The obligations set before the end of this year, together with the additional exclusively renewable tranches, will ensure that the present level of diversity is maintained well into the first decade of the next century. The Government do not believe that there is any need at present to consider the case for setting obligations designed to bring forward new capacity beyond the year 2000. The relative economics of nuclear power, renewables and fossil-generated power may well change. We believe that there is no need to take a decision now. It will be for a future government to take such decisions.
I turn now to Amendment No. 165B, which has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 169F, 170A, 172A, 172B, 172C, 173A, 232A and 232B. These are all government amendments which are technical amendments designed to tidy up the Bill. They are designed to make it clear that the obligations we shall be setting at the end of this year, to which I have referred, will be for the public electricity suppliers in England and Wales only and will cover only their authorised areas. Although the Bill would permit an obligation to be set in Scotland, as I have said, there is at present adequate diversity in generation in Scotland.
As originally drafted, the Bill would anomalously have required the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish public electricity suppliers before setting the obligation in England and Wales even though those public electricity suppliers would not be affected by it. Amendment No. 165B removes that anomaly and makes clear that only the public electricity suppliers affected need be consulted.
Amendments Nos. 172A, 172B, 172C and 173A on Clause 33 and Amendments Nos. 232A and 232B are all consequential arising from this change. They have therefore been grouped together.
That leads me to the next technical point which these amendments are designed to deal with. At the time we come to set the initial non-fossil fuel obligation later this year the area boards will not have been converted into public electricity suppliers. Amendment No. 170A therefore allows consultation with the area boards to take the place of consultation with the public electricity suppliers. Those involved will of course be the same individuals. It therefore
1524
seems reasonable to consult the area boards as proxies for the companies which they are soon to become.
Another anomaly which these changes resolve concerns Berwick upon Tweed and the surrounding area. That area is in fact supplied, and will continue to be supplied, by the South of Scotland Board even though it is in England. Clearly the customers in that area already enjoy the considerable diversity of the Scottish system. There is therefore no reason why they should be required to pay a share of the costs of maintaining diversity in the English and Welsh system, which is what the non-fossil fuel obligation and the fossil fuel levy will achieve. Amendments Nos. 169F and 172B therefore make clear that the non-fossil fuel obligation and the levy are limited to the authorised areas of public electricity suppliers on whom that obligation has been placed. Berwick is thereby excluded from the English and Welsh non-fossil fuel obligation, but would be included if at any time in the future it was decided to have an NFFO north of the Border.
I hope that the Committee will see that these are simple, commonsense changes which can be agreed. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I had not realised that the noble Baroness was to make a mini-Second Reading speech on non-fossil fuels. Nevertheless that does not detract from the interest of what she had to say. With permission, I shall respond to some of what she said but save some of my remarks on the points that she raised for the specific amendments which deal with those matters.
One accepts entirely that security is an important objective. One also accepts that diversity is a means of achieving that security to some degree. What is of interest to us is that this Bill takes it for granted that private enterprise, left to itself, cannot arrive at the correct solution in providing security and therefore one has to legislate to make up that deficiency on the part of the free market. We think that the Government are right in doing that, but the Committee should realise what the Government are saying: that the private sector cannot be relied upon to provide a secure source of electricity supply.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Baroness had to say about the nuclear industry. There are other amendments on which we can say a few words on that subject. One point that puzzled us was the apparent lack of consistency. Essentially the nuclear consideration arises first and foremost in connection with security. Perhaps I may add, as I have said before, that I have no hang-ups about nuclear production. I am simply interested in having electricity produced as cheaply and securely as possible, taking due account of environmental matters. I feel that all methods of generating electricity ought to be considered on the basis of the same set of criteria.
There is one worrying aspect of the nuclear issue, and I wonder whether the Government have this clear in their minds. They appear to argue that nuclear power is simply a part of the process of

1525
obtaining diversity and security, but then add that somehow we are protecting the nuclear industry. I put it to the noble Baroness and to the Committee that the logic of the argument has nothing to do with the nuclear industry. There is nothing special about the nuclear industry. What matters is security and diversity and how it can contribute to them. One must not confuse the two issues.
I press that point on the Committee because a couple of weeks ago I raised the question of whether nuclear power generated in France counts towards whatever the nuclear commitment is. As I understand it—the noble Baroness explained it to me, but, if I had read the Bill more carefully, I should have understood it anyway—nuclear power generated abroad counts towards the nuclear commitment.
I should make two points in that respect. First, that clearly does not protect the British nuclear industry because I take it that the British Government are not in the business of protecting the French nuclear industry. Therefore, in so far as we are discussing the British nuclear industry, as it were, security abroad does not meet that point. Secondly, it is not obvious to me what the nuclear bit of "abroad" has to do with it. What matters is "abroad" generally; however its electricity is produced, it adds to our security. I think that there is a certain amount of confusion on the Government's part as to quite what that is all about. For once, I make that comment rather than my usual remark that the confusion is on my part.
Another point about nuclear power, which I shall come to again, is the question that I always ask: why does it turn out to be as expensive as it is? I hope that we shall have a chance in due course to say a few words about that subject. I should emphasise one other aspect of the matter. Certainly, from my experience of nuclear power stations—and this is true of almost all power stations—they seem to cost enormously more to set up in the first place than one budgets for. Nuclear power used to have a particular capacity for overrunning. Alternatively, the planners had a particular capacity for not telling the truth when they were trying to get the thing through in the first place.
However, either way, one of the worrying points about nuclear power—I reiterate that I am not in the least anti-nuclear—is that one always seems to end up with higher bills than one wants. Since one has to discount the eventual flows using a discount rate, the higher one's initial capital costs, and the higher the discount rate, the more it is biased against nuclear power. I was therefore rather surprised that the noble Baroness emphasised other matters as the reason why nuclear power was so expensive. I should like some enlightenment on that point.
We are glad that the noble Baroness has raised the environment questions; but I hope that she will accept my slight apology for preferring to debate those questions after another amendment or two, rather than deal with them now. Perhaps I may now turn to the specific amendment and the consequentials. I suppose—and I should think that
1526
I am capable of annoying my noble friends at least as much as anyone else on this matter—that we must constantly accept the division between Scotland and England and Wales in this matter. I do not see the logic of such propositions; namely, that we have sufficient diversity in Scotland and that the problem therefore lies with England and Wales. That is to assume—I hesitate to say this on this particular day, given at least one by-election that is taking place—that Scotland is already a separate nation. I should like some explanation of the economics of why diversity is not an overall United Kingdom, or at least Great Britain, phenomenon and can be dealt with on that basis rather than on an England and Wales basis.
Having said that, and given that we accept the England and Wales versus Scotland division—because that is part of the rules of the game—I accept the amendments of the noble Baroness. They are of the sort that we must keep England and Wales separate from Scotland and must not let the Scots be consulted on matters relating to England and Wales. I therefore take her word for it and entirely accept that this is a technical matter. I hope—using the word "chauvinist" with its correct meaning—that I am not being an ultra-English chauvinist, when I say that I still end up slightly puzzled as to why England and Wales and Scotland are separated yet again. That is perhaps a trifle frivolous at the beginning of a serious day's debate. On the main point, it seems to me that the amendments are with merit and do not need to be opposed.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: As we are dealing with this clause generally, perhaps I may just welcome the statement by my noble friend Lady Hooper which gives support to the wider spectrum of sources of energy for our electricity supply industry for the future. But I am a little confused and I should like to clarify one point.
My noble friend referred at one point to maintaining a proportion of non-fossil fuel generating capacity. She referred in another case to non-fossil generating source of supply. "Capacity" relates to the ability of the UK to supply non-fossil fuel sources of energy, whereas "supply" includes the ability to buy from overseas. I hope that her assurances to us refer to capacity and not to supply.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I was somewhat surprised at the tone of the speech of the noble Baroness which, as he said, was somewhat in the nature of a Second Reading speech. But, within that speech, she uttered a kind of throw-away line on which I should like to tackle her.
During her introductory speech, she said that the Government accept that there must be a maintenance of British nuclear energy in their electricity programme. She put that comment within the context of the requirement for a proportion of non-fossil fuel generation.
Throughout the Committee stage, I and other people have been asking what is the Government's position regarding renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency. I am sorry that we have to come

1527
to this matter now because I should much prefer it to be left until we come to later amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. But, as the noble Baroness included that point in her speech, it is necessary to tackle it head-on now.
When the noble Baroness states that the Government have taken that decision so far as concerns nuclear energy, have they taken into account the true costs of nuclear energy? Have they taken into consideration not just the costs of building, but the subsequent costs of decommissioning and of the disposal of waste? Have they taken into account health costs and the degree of leukaemia that is now quite apparently becoming established around a number of the nuclear reactors? The noble Baroness says, as though it were a throw-away line, "Well, the costs may change". Yes, they may change; they will change. But surely she agrees that it is inevitable that the more nuclear power is generated, the more nuclear waste will also be generated, and therefore that the costs of disposal of that waste and the methods of disposal must be taken into account when the Government blithely say, "We accept that nuclear energy will play a part in this whole privatisation scheme". It seems as though the Government have all the time been saying that that proportion of generation which is to come from non-fossil fuels is first of all nuclear. Only then can we perhaps include, at least in rhetoric, wave power, solar power and other sources of renewable energy.
Cannot the noble Baroness come clean on this matter and say where the Government stand or where they will stand? What do they intend to do about discovering the extent to which nuclear energy can be replaced by the safer and more efficient forms of energy from renewable sources? I say "safer" and "more efficient" because the Government have made great play of down-grading, reducing and restricting fossil fuel burning because of their express concern for the greenhouse effect.
As I have told the noble Baroness time after time during our discussions in Committee, it has now been established that energy efficiency and renewable sources are far more cost-effective and efficient in reducing the greenhouse effect than is nuclear energy itself. As she raised this issue this afternoon, I hope that the noble Baroness will address herself to that central point. It is an international point that is now being debated all over the world and I am sure she is aware that other countries have taken decisions different from the one that she announced this afternoon on behalf of her Government.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and I cannot help thinking that my noble friend on the Front Bench was perhaps a little unwise in provoking the discussion at this stage. My noble friend should regard the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, as something of a self-inflicted wound which she encouraged in a rather careless way.
As I am on my feet, I should like to ask how far the Government are convinced that these
1528
amendments are at all necessary. The original text provided that the Secretary of State "may" consult with the public electricity suppliers. At the relevant time the public electricity supplier will not be in existence yet we have to go through all the labour of amending the Bill. I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State and those who advise him could possibly have taken the liberty of consulting those who were about to become public electricity suppliers without necessarily worrying about whether the Act would authorise them to do so. I do wonder whether my noble friend was right in accepting the advice that she has received and thus prolonging the discussion.
Baroness Hooper: I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. As I said, my intention was to provide a little background to a number of government amendments which have been grouped together. I hope that the Committee will appreciate that in the long run that will shorten the debates on many individual amendments.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I should stress that it is not that the private sector cannot produce a secure supply but that on current economics and due largely to the inherited costs in the nuclear industry to which I referred, the diversity of supply, which we believe should include nuclear, was seen to be in need of some support. As the noble Lord said, diversity of supply is one of the most important aspects.
As regards the inclusion of overseas supplies—I feel sure that the Committee will have a rather fuller discussion of this aspect when we come to deal with later amendments—because of our European obligations we are not only not in the business of protecting our home industry but we simply would not be allowed to do so because of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. With regard to the noble Lord's remarks on the cost of nuclear power, I repeat that the cost is largely due to the inheritance principally of the Magnox stations which proved to have very high reprocessing elements. As I understand it, that is the reason why a Labour Government originally—in the shape of Mr. Benn as Secretary of State—decided to look at the PWR option. Based on that option we see the economics of the nuclear industry changing because the PWRs have proved to be successful in other countries which have wide experience of that particular technology.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness for a minute. I should like a little elucidation. If it is a question of past costs, then why does not the most fundamental principle of economics apply; namely, that bygones are bygones? Those are sunk costs. Why do the Government not just write them off? It seems to me to be very odd that a nuclear quota is needed in order to deal with past costs. That is my first question to the noble Baroness.
This is my second question: is the Minister saying that so far as new investment in nuclear power is concerned, there is no need for any protection? Is she saying that the Government are confident that nuclear stations can compete without any protection

1529
so long as past costs are ignored? Is she saying that there is no problem about potential new stations? If so, that is certainly news to me.
Baroness Hooper: The point is that the reprocessing costs extend over a very long period and many of those costs, which relate particularly to the Magnox stations, and certainly the decommissioning costs—only Berkeley has already been closed, as I said—are costs which will arise in the future. There is also the cost relating to maintaining the capacity which, in phasing out Magnox, will have to be replaced by the new system of PWRs; that is the capital investment cost related to that.
I believe that the Bill has many virtues and in this process of privatisation one of those virtues is that it has shown very clearly that those costs which formerly had been hidden in the bulk supply tariff in relation to nuclear power are now much more clearly visible and therefore understandable.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised a point about Scotland. Of course the existing diversity in Scotland which I mentioned is based largely on nuclear and hydro power. I understand that only something like one-third of Scottish electricity is produced by coal and other fossil sources. The reason why this is not simply a United Kingdom matter but concerns England and Wales and, separately, Scotland is that at present only a limited amount of power can be sent through the interconnector between England and Scotland. As many noble Lords will already know, the capacity of the line is currently some 850 megawatts, although it is intended that it should be strengthened to take 1,600 megawatts—that is, virtually doubling the capacity within the next few years. The capacity requirement of England and Wales is upwards of some 50 gigawatts and it would not be possible to rely on Scottish capacity to resolve supply shortages in England and Wales.
I shall attempt to reply to my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford by saying that what is important is diversity of supply. The duty to supply rests on the public electricity supply companies and therefore the non-fossil fuel obligation will be placed on them. So in that sense the obligation relates to supply although the capacity in England and Wales will largely fill that need.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Peyton—
Lord Peston: Before the noble Baroness continues, perhaps I may bring up again the question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. He put it in much clearer terms than I did but nonetheless it concerns the same point and it is fundamental. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify the matter. The French may well have vast amounts of spare nuclear capacity and, as I understand it, the supply companies will be free to buy electricity wherever they want. I take it that ours will not be an industry which will be told specifically by the Secretary of State to buy British and not French. I believe that that is against Community law anyway. It is at least possible that the nuclear industry does not have the very large degree of protection in terms of nuclear
1530
generation that it believed it had, as the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, said. We do not know that it has such protection because we do not know from where the supply companies will seek to buy their electricity.
I press this very serious point for this reason. I do not know whether it also applies to the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. When the White Paper appeared, I did not understand the issue in those terms. I thought that it was totally about the protection of nuclear generation in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, stated. But as I read it now, the Bill is not about nuclear protection in this country. Is what the noble Baroness stated a confirmation of what we find on page 26 at about line 17? That this is all about non-fossil fuel generation wherever such non-fossil fuel generation is? It is an extremely serious issue. I did not expect it to arise under this heading. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has already chosen to raise it. We therefore might as well deal with it now.
Baroness Hooper: I agree that it is an important matter. Perhaps I may point to paragraph 49 of the White Paper on privatising electricity. It specifically refers to sources from Scotland, France, the Atomic Energy Authority and BNFL. That is why I made that specific reference in my opening remarks. It should not come as a total surprise that we had looked to those sources as part of the contribution to the diversity of supply. But there can be no doubt that in setting the obligation, as will be necessary, at the beginning of the process, that obligation will be set to cover the existing UK capacity. In so doing, there will have to be proof of contractual arrangements to ensure that the obligation is fulfilled from the public electricity supply companies with stations that will include the English and Welsh plants. The contracts will of course be with National Power which will have the ownership of those assets. There is therefore a contractual safeguard on top.
My noble friend Lord Peyton suggested that the consultation requirement is optional. I confirm that the requirement is mandatory and not optional. It also refers to the public electricity suppliers. In law that is not the same as a reference to the boards, and cannot be taken to be the same. I believe that I have already explained that as the reason for one of this group of amendments.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is waiting patiently for a response to his remarks. I would ask him to show a little more patience because in the next batch of government amendments which I am due to introduce as soon as we have finished our discussion on this group of amendments, I shall be dealing specifically with renewables. I hope that I shall be able to respond to many of the anxieties that he expressed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to say that I was not quite clear about what she said on the mandatory issue. Clause 32 states:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the director".
That surely gives him the right to consult. I am not quite sure why it was necessary to put that in the

1531
Bill in the first place. To amend such provision does not seem necessary.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on that point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the noble Baroness sits down, my noble friend Lord Hatch made specific reference to nuclear power and its effect on, or it being the cause of, leukaemia. For my sins, I happen to be a supporter of nuclear power. Unless it has been stated quite recently, I am not aware that any definite link has been established between the use of nuclear power and leukaemia clusters. The latest information that I have is that there are conflicting reports. It would be remiss of us if we were to go through these proceedings on the assumption that there was a definite link. The noble Baroness may wish to refer to the matter, if not on this amendment, on succeeding amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to support the statement that has just been made. In our desire not to prolong debates on these amendments, we have tended to allow the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, to go unchallenged. The feeling of this Committee would not necessarily be in support of what he said on this issue in two respects. First, he stated the position as a fact, when no fact has been proved as to the medical situation yet. Secondly, he implied that solar and wave power, and all these other issues, could overnight provide sufficient energy for our needs. I do not accept that. It is good that this point has been brought up now.
Baroness Hooper: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and my noble friend for clarifying that point. I should have made the clarification myself. I agree entirely that there is absolutely no proof of the assertion that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, made in this respect.
It also gives me the opportunity to refer to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Peyton. Although Clause 32 states that the Secretary of State may make an order, the consultation process is mandatory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 165C:
Page 25, line 4, leave out from ("is") to ("less") in line 9 and insert ("that, for a period specified in the order, there will be available to the public electricity supplier—

(a) from non-fossil fuel generating stations; or

(b) if the order so provides, from non-fossil fuel generating stations of any particular description,

an aggregate amount of generating capacity which is not").
The noble Baroness said: As has already been said, we attach very great importance to the renewable sources of energy generation. In moving Amendment No. 165C, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 169A, 169B, 169C, 169E and 173J. Those are related amendments.
I shall endeavour not to make what can be called another Second Reading speech. However, I am in
1532
a position now to elaborate on a matter to which I referred during my Second Reading speech. Not only does it relate to the amendments, but I know that renewable generation supporters, having heard what was said at Second Reading, have been anxious to find out more of the details. Perhaps I may set the background to our thinking.
We believe that renewables have a significant contribution to make to diversity in generation. This is true now, and I believe that it will be increasingly true in the future as a number of the developing renewable technologies are able to prove themselves to be attractive commercial options. That is why we framed the obligation as a non-fossil obligation, not as a nuclear obligation. Of course the renewable sources also have a contribution to make to limiting the damage which the burning of fossil fuels does to the environment in terms of both the greenhouse effect and acid rain, as has been said. In the case of landfill gas generation, this is particularly important because the methane which is burnt is one of the more damaging gases when released in the atmosphere.
I believe we are all aware that some renewable sources, like wind, tidal and solar power, are by their nature intermittent. They cannot be relied upon to be generating exactly when they are needed because the wind may not be blowing or the tide may be at the wrong time of day. So to make sure that these intermittent sources are given fair capacity Clause 32(8)(a) will allow the Secretary of State to issue regulations to say how their capacity should be calculated for the purposes of the non-fossil fuel obligation. It is intended that the regulations will provide that the capacity for such sources for non-fossil fuel obligation purposes will be calculated by reference to their average availability over the year, compared with the typical availability for nuclear power. That will mean that their capacity entitlement for the non-fossil fuel obligation will be considerably higher than it would on a strict interpretation of what counts as firm capacity.
The obligation which will be placed on the public electricity suppliers by order later this year will, as I have already made clear, require the bringing forward of sufficient new non-fossil capacity by the year 2000 to maintain roughly the existing level of diversity in generating sources. I emphasise that it will be a minimum figure, not a maximum one. This is a vital national need. Once the obligation has been met the Government and the nation will be assured of secure supplies well into the next century. It is clearly important that this capacity is contracted for before the flotation of the companies in order to give the industry, its investors and the country certainty that the diversity, of which we all approve, will be maintained.
Renewable projects will of course be able to contribute to the initial obligation through contracts signed before the end of this year. We shall be setting the obligation with this in mind, as I have said, to encourage the distribution companies to contract for all practical and ecnomic propositions. We are conscious, however, that in many cases renewable projects have not yet developed to the extent that contracts can be offered to the distribution

1533
companies as soon as the end of this year. A number of renewable generators in this position made representations to us which we considered very carefully. This group of amendments to which I am speaking represents the course of action that we have decided to take. To have failed to take this into account would have meant that renewable projects would not be able to make their full contribution to the non-fossil obligation. We do not intend this to happen.
The Secretary of State therefore announced on 5th April our intention to create a special, privileged place for renewables within the non-fossil fuel obligation. This is what I referred to in my Second Reading speech. This will be done by setting special extra tranches of capacity, defined, as I have already explained, as declared net capacity within the non-fossil fuel obligation which can be filled only by renewable forms of energy. The amendments enable the Secretary of State to do that.
As originally drafted the Bill allowed the order to specify that the capacity should be only from non-fossil stations. Amendment No. 165C introduces the alternative of specifying that it must be from non-fossil stations of a particular description. The Secretary of State will therefore be able to set orders specifying that they can only be met by capacity from renewable generators.
In total, we envisage increasing the obligation by up to 600 MW specifically for renewable resources by the year 2000. We believe that is large enough to provide real incentives for renewables while ensuring that there will be genuine competition. The majority of renewable projects are small in terms of megawatts so 600 MW will allow a considerable number of projects to be contracted. I must emphasise that renewable resources will not be limited to only these tranches. If generators are in a position to sign contracts before the end of this year they will be able to contribute towards the main part of the obligation. Indeed, we understand that some will be in that position. Thus renewable forms of energy are in no way being confined to these tranches or excluded from the main obligation, but this special section of the obligation will not be able to be filled in any way by nuclear capacity.
To give time for the developing renewable generators to work up their proposals into firm contracts which the distribution companies can sign, we shall set these extra tranches to take effect at various dates through the 1990s. So even if a project is not able to compete within one of the earlier tranches there will be other tranches later to which it can contribute.
In setting the size of each tranche we shall consider the progress which has been made in developing the different technologies and the lead times necessary to build new stations. Different renewable technologies take different lengths of time for stations to be built. A large tidal project can take around seven to 10 years to construct; waste incineration plants can take around three years to plan and construct, and landfill gas and wind turbine installations can be built in as little as two years in some cases. We shall clearly
1534
have to take account of these differences so that promising technologies are not excluded simply because they need an earlier commitment. In this way we shall make sure that the extra tranches will provide a continual spur to the development of new renewable sources. Renewable generators can always look to the future with optimism.
We have given some thought to when the first of the extra tranches might come into effect. I can say today that the date for the first extra tranche will be 1992, and that the size of that tranche should be around 50MW. We have deliberately chosen this early date of 1992 to give renewable generators who only narrowly missed being included in the main obligation the prospect of contributing the NFFO in the near future. After this initial early tranche our present intention is to add further tranches of 100 to 150MW by 1995, and then a further 100 to 150MW by 1997, and finally a further 300MW by the year 2000, all within the 600MW overall limit.
This initiative, combined with all the other measures we are taking to help independent generators, will give renewables a major boost. It will ensure that a competitive market exists so that renewable generators can develop their proposals in that knowledge. Once again we are taking clear, positive steps to make sure that the nation enjoys the full benefits which the non-fossil sources of power offer. I hope the Committee will agree that this is an important step forward.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the last of the government amendments to Clause 32, which is Amendment No. 169E. This gives the Secretary of State the final word on whether any particular arrangements meet the non-fossil obligation when it is first set later this year. The Government have made clear that in the nuclear area there will not initially be sufficient competition to impose true market disciplines on National Power. Regulation will therefore be achieved primarily with the approval of the nuclear contracts by the Government, so the Secretary of State is particularly interested in the nuclear contracts because he has to make sure that they contain the right incentives to good performance and cost control.
It would create uncertainty if there were a divergence of view between the Secretary of State and the director on whether the terms of the contract were the right ones. It is therefore only appropriate that the Secretary of State should be the final arbiter of whether an arrangement is suitable to meet the obligation. However, this power extends only over the initial set of arrangements to meet the first non-fossil fuel obligation order. When we set the extra tranches exclusively for renewables it will be the director who will judge whether the evidence presented to him by the public electricity suppliers meets the obligation.
I feel sure that the Committee will see that these changes are sensible and I trust Members will feel able to accept this group of amendments in due course. For the moment, I beg to move Amendment No. 165C.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I welcomed the noble Baroness's initial speech. Is she saying that the Government intend that the renewable proportion of the non-fossil fuel requirement will start, as it is today, as a minimum and that they hope that it will expand in the future? If that is right and if the expansion is successful, as in other countries, will it be at least theoretically possible for the whole of the non-fossil fuel percentage to be allocated to renewable sources without any contribution from the nuclear side?
Baroness Hooper: In theory that is so. However, we know that in practice there are insufficient available renewable sources but we hope that they will continue to improve and grow.
Lord Peston: My true hope is that, with British science and technology, what my noble friend says will turn out to be true. I believe that the amendments are sensible but I have a few questions to ask. I always have one obvious comment. I hope that because the Government's thinking is not so divergent from ours we can look forward to the noble Baroness accepting some of our amendments today.
Renewables are a sub-set of the set of all non-fossil fuels. The Government do not appear to be keen to use the word "renewables" in the Bill. Her intervention has been extremely useful. I had assumed that the amendment was in part about renewables but the difficulty was that the word did not appear in the Bill. It provides for what is called "non-fossil fuel generating stations" of any particular description. What is there about the word "renewables" which is unsuitable? Perhaps her lawyers have advised her that it is so, but because the clause is all about renewables I am a little taken aback that the word does not appear.
I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Williams with one of his excellent speeches on the powers of the Secretary of State, orders and so forth. However, whatever protection is given to renewables will be via an order made by the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble Baroness used phrases such as "the Secretary of State intends" and "the Government intend". Secretaries of State and governments are transitory. The fact that one Secretary of State or government have an intention does not mean that the next one will have the same intention. One must make the point that, if there is a commitment to renewables—which we all agree there should be but we accept the problems of science and technology—is there not a case for the amendment to be improved by not just relying on orders or the Secretary of State's intentions? Rather—to use a phrase which everyone uses but which I dislike—we should have the provision on the face of the Bill.
I do not put forward that suggestion in any mean debating spirit, because there is not much between us. If Members present did not realise that the clause was about renewables, the point I am making holds strongly.
I have a question which I intended to raise in connection with the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It also applies here and will arise
1536
later, so I give notice of it. It is the question of who will pay. Essentially we are arguing that extra costs in the ordinary sense of paying out money will arise because of our concern with non-fossil fuels and renewables. We argue that enormous benefits will be gained in environment, security and so forth. I give notice to the noble Baroness that in relation to the relevant charging clause I shall ask a more specific question. However, does she appreciate that the "Who will pay?" question depends on the nature of the benefits.
If the benefits are of a security kind—in other words, households and firms want to feel secure that the electricity is available—it is entirely right that they should pay for that because they are receiving the benefit. However, if the benefit is of environmental or national interest, it should be paid for by the taxpayer. I believe that, according to the Bill as it stands, the electricity consumer will pay for all the national interest side, even though it does not accrue solely to the electricity consumer in proportion to his or her consumption of electricity.
The "Who will pay?" question is important and does not detract from these amendments. Apart from the point that I should prefer the provision to be on the face of the Bill rather than by order, these appear to be sensible amendments. The noble Baroness will appreciate that we are keen on renewables and non-fossil fuels, so I do not seek to draw us away from the spirit of what she is doing. However, I mentioned that we shall be raising other issues.
Lord Ezra: In my contribution at Second Reading I expressed reservations about the way in which renewables did not appear to be entering into the picture. The reference to non-fossil fuels did not appear to specify which were nuclear. I was also concerned that there might be a cut-off point for renewables. I am glad that the statement which the noble Baroness has made has gone a long way towards allaying those fears. We now have a definition of renewables that will be included within the non-fossil fuel element.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in that, if we are talking about renewables, we may as well include the word in the Bill. I can see nothing wrong with it. I like the idea of the tranches and of building up the amount of renewables in the system. However, I should like to make one point. It is clear when one considers the question of renewables that a large amount of research is required in order to bring them to fruition. The longer range part of that research has hitherto been contributed to by government. We shall need an assurance that that contribution will be continued, if not, desirably, extended.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have welcomed this group of amendments. I shall endeavour to reply to the specific questions that have been raised. We do not use the word "renewables" because some forms of generation, such as waste-derived fuel or rubbish burning, do not legally count as a renewable fuel. Nevertheless, we should wish to embrace it as a non-fossil fuel generating station.

1537
The renewable tranches are not set out specifically on the face of the Bill, but I believe that my statement and the Government's commitment are quite clear. Although binding on this Government, and I understand even more so on a succeeding government of another complexion, it is considered difficult to assess technical and economic potential for renewables over as comparatively short a period as the next 10 years. Therefore, it is important to be able to adjust to better information and to meet the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, pointing towards a more rapid explosion in the field of renewable sources.
As regards the cost of the non-fossil fuel obligation, the cost of diversity will be covered by the non-fossil levy. The fact that there are also environmental advantages is neither here nor there. The taxpayer's involvement is in the field of research and development referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I realise that the noble Lord has tabled a specific amendment dealing with that point. However, the Government already have a commitment to research and development in this area. They have recently increased it substantially and they intend to maintain it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 25, line 11, at end insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State in consultation with the Director, when specifying the non-fossil fuel generating capacity required by each public electricity supplier shall set as a percentage to be met from generating companies with a capacity of less than 10mw.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment have been grouped Amendments Nos. 167 and 169. Perhaps I may deal with all three together. I believe that these amendments, which all relate to a further definition of the non-fossil fuel generating capacity, follow on from the proposals which we have just had from the Government. Therefore, I hope that there will not be too much difficulty in accepting their intention, if not the precise wording.
I can deal with Amendment No. 166 very briefly. It is merely to try to safeguard the position of those generators with very low capacity. I have been approached by the organisation which represents them and those firms are concerned that they may be squeezed out by the larger generators. Therefore, this is merely to give them a form of safeguard that they will have a share of the action. I hope that that very simple amendment can be agreed as to its intent at any rate.
Amendment No. 167 follows on from what we have just heard from the noble Baroness; namely, that in dealing with non-fossil fuel generating capacity, the Secretary of State in consultation with the director shall set quotas for the non-fossil fuels. Those will obviously be arrived at after full discussion with the parties concerned.
I believe that there would be great merit in this because it would indicate the potential for developing each particular form of non-fossil fuel—and I avoid using the word "renewable"
1538
because we have now been told why that must not be used. Wind, water, solar, waste, combined heat and power or nuclear could all come into that definition. I believe that that could greatly help in research programmes allocated to those fuels and could help very much in the investment intentions to develop them. It could also act as general guidance. Therefore, I feel that that is a logical follow-on from what the noble Baroness has just told us.
Of course for the purposes of setting these quotas, as is proposed in Amendment No. 167(2)(b), demand reductions brought about by energy efficiency programmes should be included as part of the non-fossil fuel provision. Therefore, that is the intent of Amendment No. 167.
Amendment No. 169 comes back once again to this whole question of how we can stimulate and encourage energy efficiency programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred to that at an earlier stage, as have other Members of the Committee who have so far spoken in the debate. Therefore, this raises the point that energy efficiency programmes could be included within the non-fossil fuel capacity because of the big contribution which they make not only to energy efficiency as such but also environmentally.
Therefore, in conclusion, in moving this amendment I feel that these proposals follow on logically from what the noble Baroness has just told us and I hope that they will find the favour of the Committee. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Trafford: I have a slight anxiety about these amendments in that they are confusing. They certainly follow on from what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said but there is a difference between energy generation and energy saving. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that it is necessary to stimulate energy efficiency programmes and energy saving. I do not argue with that. The argument I have with this series of amendments is simply that we are including that which is not generation with that which is; for example, in Amendment No. 167 subsection (2)(a) refers to,
"wind, water, solar, waste and … nuclear power."
I believe that the others refer to a slightly different situation which is not the generation, but the saving, of energy. I am sure that those should be seen differently and treated differently, otherwise we could find ourselves in quite a confused situation. That is my only dispute.
Lord Renton: These amendments are so obviously well intentioned that I hope that any criticism I make will not be considered unhelpful. Quite frankly, I have read Amendment No. 166 several times and it may be due to the limitation of my intellectual capacity but I cannot make it mean anything. Perhaps I have missed the point, but as expressed it does not seem to me to be even grammatical. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the wording because it does not seem to express the intention which he had with regard to it.

1539
Amendment No. 167 would require the Secretary of State to specify for each public electricity supplier a quota for each non-fossil fuel for that supplier to use. A quota is not expressed as a maximum, a minimum, a percentage or a thermal quantity. Therefore, there is that element of doubt about it.
One does not need to be much of a scientist to realise that at any rate what the noble Lord is proposing is somewhat unrealistic. Perhaps I may explain. It is unrealistic because it involves too many unpredictable and variable factors. For example, let us take the wind. The wind varies greatly from place to place with weather conditions. Although we know that it is possible to have valuable generation by means of the wind in some places, especially on high, exposed land, where it could be very effective, to set a quota irrespective of weather conditions seems to me to be unrealistic.
What about water? Even the two hydro-electricity boards in Scotland have found that their generating capacity necessarily varies with the amount of rainfall and water available, and in a very dry season they have had quite considerable difficulties, especially in the South of Scotland Electricity Board—an area which I know better than the Highlands.
The amount of solar energy which can be produced also varies with the weather. Therefore, we have to be very cautious before inviting the Secretary of State to set quotas as mentioned in paragraph (a).
As my noble friend Lord Trafford mentioned, we get into immediate difficulties when we start relating demand to generating capacity. They are quite different things. I think we would give a most imponderable factor a place in our legislation if we were to introduce what seems to me in Amendment No. 169 to be a fictitious assumption. Reductions and increases in demand are affected by all kinds of factors which bear no relation to the type of fuel used, whether a fossil or non-fossil fuel. Therefore, I find that a difficult amendment.
Frankly, I think that Amendment No. 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and others is more realistic because it relates to reduction of demand which is caused by energy efficiency programmes. I am not seeking to speak in favour of the amendment because I very much doubt whether my noble friends on the Front Bench could accept it, but it expresses a more realistic technical position to my untechnical mind. Therefore, one appreciates what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is trying to do but I feel that we would be unwise to accept his amendments as they stand.
Lord Peston: We are certainly sympathetic to these amendments. It might help the Committee if I cover two or three points first and get them over and done with in one go. I believe that for once the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is less cogent than usual because, to anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, may say, his amendment with respect to non-fossil fuels refers to generating capacity and not to generating output. Even though we know that the wind does not blow every day we can still, with what little we know about the science and technology of a windmill, determine its capacity.
1540
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is putting down a marker on capacity. He is not saying that there should be a specific amount of electricity output per day but how much capacity a supplier would have to generate in the same sense as any other generating capacity exists. The noble Lord is right about the less than perfect reliability of some of these sources, but I do not think that the amendment falls on those grounds, given that it refers to capacity and not to how much electricity has to be delivered by a supplier on any particular day. It seems to me, therefore, that that allows us to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, given that his amendment is meaningful, and to support what he says under subsection (2)(a).
What he does in the amendment relates to a point I made earlier about renewables. I entirely accept what the noble Baroness said about the wording, but what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gives us is a list. I agree that I would not like to do an examination question on which are renewables and which are not, but at least it is a list of one or the other and it includes items which I would regard as renewables; so even though the noble Baroness feels that she must reject the amendment—and I hope she does not—it opens the way to getting renewables into the Bill and overcoming one or two problems. In other words, if we cannot have renewables I should very much like to have the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, perhaps in the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness which she could amend again.
What the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said is entirely right. There is a difference between questions of capacity and how capacity is met, and the benefits that we gain from using our energy much more efficiently. To anticipate my Amendment No. 168, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said he slightly preferred but still would not support, the reason we again do it this way is that it is not easy at this stage of our proceedings to get the energy efficiency question back into the Bill in a form in which we can debate it. However, I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said is right, and therefore, to save having to speak on my amendment in a moment, I make what I take to be the central point now rather than later.
First, I accept entirely that we do not get energy efficiency easily. I am certainly not one of those who say that all we need is a little more energy efficiency to avoid the necessity to build any more power stations and that there will no longer be any environmental problem and so on. I should like to believe that that is right, but it is not. Energy efficiency is hard to get and also expensive. However, the point I make—and I make it in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said—is that it will involve capital investment. What concerns us is that we seem to be setting up a system in which correct capital investment decisions will be taken about power generation—whether it is cheaper to produce it using this power station compared with that—but the question on which we do not seem to be getting any leverage is this: Can we compare capital investment that we might undertake in order to save building those power stations anyway?

1541
One of the difficulties seems to be that no one is left with any kind of responsibility. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, although I entirely accept what he has said, is that one wants to ensure that a capital investment decision is made correctly. Having started considering the Bill without many thoughts about energy efficiency, I now believe that I should have taken it more seriously and that the Government should be taking it more seriously. In particular, if energy efficiency is in the national interest, is there not some way in which we can bring to bear a capital investment consideration in the same way as we do elsewhere? That is the reason why we are doing it this way, though I do not want to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, when he says that we are not entirely comparing like with like because I am sure that he is right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak against Amendment No. 169. Although I support the views put forward on energy efficiency I think that the amendment as set out is almost impossible to quantify. It would place a tremendous burden on the supply company. To quantify or even try to equate what demand reduction has actually produced through an energy efficiency programme and try to work that backwards into this formula it would be necessary to develop a considerable bureaucratic system. This is becoming a mathematical and almost unworkable formula.
The area boards are concerned that Amendment No. 169 would create a great deal of extra bureaucratic work which would not be to the advantage of energy efficiency. Certainly it would not be to the advantage of the consumer in cost terms if it required a great deal of extra staff simply to try to quantify something that is not quantifiable. Therefore, my argument against Amendment No. 169 is that, while it might in principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, be an interesting idea—and there are other very good points in the amendments that he has put forward—as it stands it is unworkable and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Therefore, I oppose it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: We most certainly have sympathy with the explanations given and the reasons behind the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I can readily understand why they should have an initial appeal to so many Members of the Committee. Perhaps I may try to show why we believe that they are not necessary and, indeed, might prove difficult.
Turning to Amendment No. 166, first, I believe that the objective behind this amendment—to make sure that small generators are able to flourish and play a role in satisfying the non-fossil fuel obligation—is an entirely laudable one. It ties in with much of what I have said this afternoon. I am pretty clear that this is not the best way to achieve this aim. We have already taken a number of steps to ensure that the smaller generators will be able to flourish after privatisation.
1542
First of course we are opening up competition within generation for the first time. Independent generators will therefore have a far greater number of potential customers to whom they can sell. And they will have fair and open access to the distribution system so that they can get their power to their customers, with transparent charges for use of system. We accept that the terms for use of system under the Energy Act 1983 have not necessarily worked to the benefit of independent generators. That is why the new arrangements have built on that and will change the situation.
The public electricity suppliers will be under a licence obligation to purchase from the most economic source, so efficient small generators will be assured that, so long as they offer attractive terms, the public electricity suppliers will buy their power. And if they have any worry that the public electricity suppliers might be acting in an anti-competitive way, the director general has powers to investigate.
In addition, the licences we are proposing for independent generators and suppliers may, if a case can be made, include powers to break streets and purchase land compulsorily where this is necessary for the carrying out of their activities. As from 1st April 1990 all electricity generators or combined heat and power schemes that have the capability to export electricity to the electricity supply industry's distribution network will have their rateable value assessed on a comparable basis. These are all steps in the right direction.
On top of all of this we are keen to make sure that independent generators using non-fossil fuels are able to contribute to the non-fossil obligation. That is why we are leaving it until later this year before we set the level of the obligation so that smaller generators have a chance to develop their proposals. Independent generators have a role to play in achieving diversity and I am confident that supply companies will see the benefits of having a range of sources of generation, including small local generators.
In addition, for those generators who are not quite able to meet the deadline later this year, as we have already established, there will be additional tranches in the obligation reserved solely for renewables.
Finally, we recognise that the new arrangements may create some uncertainty for existing independent generators and particularly the small ones, who may not feel confident about testing the new market. Therefore we have agreed transitional arrangements with the supply companies. These offer assured tariffs to those generators who have invested against the backdrop of the guaranteed market offered by the Energy Act 1983. The supply companies will continue to guarantee to purchase such electricity on comparable tariffs to those available under the Energy Act for a period of five years. I hope that the Committee will accept that this all adds up to a much improved competitive environment for the smaller non-fossil generators. I am sure that generators themselves will not be slow to take advantage of this opportunity.
I now turn to Amendment No. 167. As I hope I have made it abundantly clear, the Government

1543
wholeheartedly share the commitment to diversify in generation. The purpose of the non-fossil fuel obligation is expressly to ensure that diversity. However, we feel that this amendment will require the Secretary of State, in setting individual quotas, to introduce an element of restriction.
As our amendments on the new tranches for renewables show, the Government also fully accept that renewable sources of energy have a significant contribution to make to this diversity. But to go further and to specify the exact amounts that each non-fossil source must contribute is unnecessary and could harm their long-term prospects, as I said earlier in relation to the previous amendment. There are a number of renewable sources which are currently moving rapidly towards commercial operation and we wish to encourage them all, but it is impossible at this stage to predict the exact amounts of each source which will become economic over the next 10 years.
Were we to try to do this we would be quite likely to get it wrong. This would put the public electricity suppliers in the impossible position of being subject to an obligation part of which they cannot meet, or can only meet at very high cost. This could only add to electricity prices and would not help in promoting economic renewable projects. I hope the Committee will agree this is not sensible.
Moving on to CHP and energy efficiency, a number of people have made it quite clear that they are extremely interested in extending the non-fossil obligation to cover these areas. The Government share the views that have been expressed about the importance of energy efficiency and CHP. My noble friend Lord Trafford put his finger on the fact that the non-fossil fuel obligation is not the right place to promote these measures. Before explaining what the Government are doing in these areas, perhaps I may say why I believe that.
First, as I have said earlier, the aim of the NFFO is simple. It is to promote a diversity of fuel inputs for electricity generation. It is not to promote efficiency in fuel use. We would not only have to take into account energy efficiency and CHP, but the levels of efficiency of electricity generation by different power stations, the level of transmission and distribution losses and so on. Our approach is simple: competition in electricity supply will encourage efficiency in fuel use. Diversity in fuel use at present has a cost and so would not necessarily be maintained in a competitive structure. So we are introducing the minimum constraint necessary to ensure diversity.
Secondly, since diversity has a cost, it is necessary to legislate to ensure that it is maintained. And it is reasonable to share that cost among electricity customers. Diversity in fuel use benefits the nation as a whole through the ability to maintain electricity generation at times of fuel shortage. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised this matter. The difference is that measures to improve efficiency of use, such as energy efficiency and CHP, benefit those who implement them. They benefit directly from the lower fuel costs they themselves face. The measures themselves do not contribute to diversity in fuel use, except for CHP schemes based on non-fossil fuel,
1544
which will of course be able to contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment. She has put her finger on the nub of the matter, and I believe this is the right time to clear it up. I do not see how competition between electricity suppliers in any way leads to energy efficient programmes, but quite the contrary. The companies are in the business of selling electricity and that is what they are competing to do. Except on PR grounds—and we certainly cannot rely on those—why should they promote energy efficiency? That is the first question. The second question is this: is the noble Baroness saying therefore that energy efficiency will have to lie with the individual firm and household taking its own private and "atomistic" decision? I believe that that is what the Minister is saying. Therefore, she is saying that there is no national interest in energy efficiency. That is the worrying thing; namely, that she does not see any overall interest in energy efficiency other than those decisions taken by private firms and individuals. It seems to me that she has said this before, but I was hoping that the Government would see that there is an energy efficiency interest here over and beyond that. That is where she has rather lost me, and that is why some of our little debates have not led to any meeting of minds. It may well be that this is something she does not wish to pursue on this amendment; but if it will help her, that is what we are about. We are saying that we do not see that it is in the interests of the supplier to promote energy efficiency, and we do not see how it can be left to the demander. That makes the position as clear as I can.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If I may interrupt on that point, I have spoken before about the supplier wanting to promote energy efficiency, and I do not think it can be overlooked. It is in the interests of the supplier to have satisfied customers, and customers do not want to pay more and more for less satisfaction. Therefore each area board at the moment is running an economy system whereby they are encouraging conservation of energy. Of course they want to sell more appliances, such as air conditioning and so on, which may use more energy; but they want more energy-efficient items. They are also competing with the gas and oil industries. It is not simply that they are competing with one another and satisfying the customer only. There is an overall point that the customer will go where he gets the appliance that, for example, gives him the most heat for the least money. Therefore it is in the interests of the board to keep that consumer by providing energy efficient appliances.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord and indeed to my noble friend. I was coming on to talk a little more about energy efficiency, although I appreciate that we debated it very fully at an earlier stage, and that an amendment on the matter was passed by the Committee.
The emphasis in the Bill on the duty on the Secretary of State and the director general is in relation to the end use of electricity, and the licence

1545
conditions which will bear upon the supply of the public electricity companies will enable the Secretary of State and the director general to perform that duty. But what we believe is an anomaly is to legislate to require proposals which are in the consumer's own interests and which do not have a cost. It is clear that, if energy efficiency and CHP measures have a cost, they are uneconomic and should not be supported. It is far better to place a more general obligation on the public electricity suppliers to contract for non-fossil fuel capacity and to leave it to them to choose which source of non-fossil is the best choice. This, we believe, will ensure that the most economic sources are encouraged, and that the more expensive sources are given an incentive to get their price down.
As I said, we have already debated the question of energy efficiency at some length on at least two other occasions and I have enumerated the various ways in which the Government are promoting that. We believe that there are better ways of promoting CHP and energy efficiency. Nevertheless, because of the fact that we have said a great deal on this subject so far, I can sum up by saying that all the areas which these amendments seek to support are indeed laudable ones. But they are ones where, with proper pricing and with the removal of barriers to competition, the market should, and shall, lead consumers to make the right choices and to reap the benefits.
Diversity is different. Without government intervention, the diversity we enjoy would be eroded and our security of supply lost. To me this is the crucial distinction which lies at the heart of why we find it impossible to accept these amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, because it has been very useful and a good preliminary to other important issues which will arise in a few moments. Perhaps I may deal briefly with the three amendments. As regards Amendment No. 166, I was very glad to note the views expressed by the noble Baroness of the support which will be given whenever possible to ensure that there is a fair share for the smaller generators. They feel that they are being launched on to an unknown sea and they are genuinely very worried about the new situation in which they may find themselves. So it is important that the noble Baroness made the remarks that she did and that they be in Hansard.
On Amendment No. 167, I am most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for underlining the fact that what is referred to here is capacity and not output. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the wind, etc. This is merely the capacity. How much is actually produced will depend on all kinds of other circumstances.
I should have thought it would have been useful, if not to have quotas, at least to have broad indications of where one would be going with these various forms of energy. When Sub-Committee B of
1546
the European Communities Committee examined the question of the Community's policy on renewables, it was very clear what effort was being put into the different kinds of energy specified here. There was a fairly clear indication where, according to certain circumstances, they might get to by the year 2000. I should have thought there was nothing wrong with having broad indications, even if one did not have precise quotas.
On the question raised in Amendment No. 169, I should like to defer my remarks to later when I have a specific proposal to make in conjunction with CHP. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 169 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 169A, 169Band 169C:
Page 25, line 24, after ("a") insert ("particular").
Page 25, line 29, leave out ("non-fossil fuel").
Page 25, line 30, after ("supplier") insert ("from that station").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 169D:
Page 25, line 30, at end insert—
("(5A) That electricity generated in a combined heat and power plant shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) above as generated by a non-fossil fuel generating station for the proportion of the electricity produced that is equivalent to the measured quantity of heat distributed at a temperature greater than 60°C or more from the power station.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to say something more about CHP and this gives me an opportunity to do so. I know that it has been referred to many times, but this is a specific amendment related to the whole concept of CHP. I must declare an interest there. I have been involved in trying to promote CHP schemes with limited success for the past 30 years or so. Whereas other countries have moved forward at a great rate in this area, we have fallen behind.
It must be explained very clearly what CHP is all about. In normal power station generation, as noble Lords are well aware, the conversion factor from primary energy to distributed electricity is of the order of between 35 and 37 per cent. depending on the power station. But in generating electricity a large amount of water is required to produce the steam to drive the turbines. This water is normally cooled after it has performed its purpose and then it goes around the system again.
The proposition with CHP is that if we could make use of that hot water by, instead of having a cooling tower on the site, having what is the equivalent of a cooling tower by using pipes to circulate the hot water to heat premises, we would then be getting an additional useful source of energy out of power stations and something like 60 or 65 per cent. in total. This seems a highly desirable objective and if we can achieve that kind of result and double the efficiency, why has it not been done? There is a problem and I shall explain it. In order to circulate the hot water we must have the pipework. We must dig up the roads, or whatever it is; we must lay the pipes; we must install them in the houses;

1547
and we must connect them. Finally, the proposition must be made to look attractive to people so that they will prefer that sort of heating rather than any other.
The system requires a good deal of up-front capital expenditure. We must spend the money on the pipework in order to do the job. That means that until we have paid back the capital we will not receive much of a return in financial terms. However, as soon as the system starts working we will receive a very good return in terms of fuel efficiency. In due course, when the capital is repaid, we will reap a very substantial financial benefit. That is precisely the situation which occurs in Scandinavia, France and Germany and in many other countries in Western and, indeed, in Eastern Europe. The capital has been spent in such countries and by now much benefit is being achieved.
Much support has been given to the concept of CHP. Moreover, those Members of this Chamber who took part in the debates on the 1983 energy legislation will recall that CHP was specifically mentioned as one of its underlying objectives. In fact, it provided the concept with no help at all. As one who has strongly supported CHP over the years, I am much disturbed to find that the word is not even mentioned in the Bill, let alone specifically supported. If we in this country had adopted the same approach to nuclear power as we have adopted to CHP there would not have been a single nuclear power station built. I say that because, as we all know, nuclear stations require a large amount of capital; you spend the capital and you receive the benefit later over a period of years. That is precisely the position with CHP.
Therefore the purpose of this amendment is to say that CHP adds an additional energy dimension to a power station. The station takes the hot water and instead of putting it in a cooling tower in order to cool it down, it circulates it and ultimately uses it as a new heat source which otherwise would not exist. That source could then displace additional fossil fuel sources, and so on. Further, it has a positive environmental impact; indeed, it is a new form of energy which at present is going to waste.
What we suggest by way of this amendment is that where there are CHP schemes, or where there are intended to be such schemes, the hot water element should count as a non-fossil fuel and not as the totality of the product of the power station. The hot water element can very easily be measured. It can be measured precisely in terms of kilowatt hours just as you measure the electricity leaving the power station in terms of kilowatt hours—something which is done all the time on the continent. Therefore you can measure precisely the amount of hot water leaving a power station for the purpose of heating premises. This is a new form of energy precisely defined, meeting the criteria of energy efficiency, meeting the criteria of environmental improvement and, in due course after capital costs have been met, proving to be very positively financially attractive.
I should like to add that unless something along those lines is done to enable major CHP schemes to be launched, we shall not have any. We have not
1548
had any for the past 30 years and we shall not have any for the next 30 years, because of the initial capital cost requirement. Some form of stimulus and some form of initial support is required.
It seems to me that the non-fossil fuel formula contained in the Bill provides just what is needed. I have spent quite some time trying to explain the concept because it seems to me that it is a special case of great importance. I think that a major decision must be reached by Members of this Chamber as to whether we want to see major combined heat and power schemes go forward in this country. It is perfectly true that there is a large number of small ones. Indeed, many industrial concerns find the system quite useful. Of course, they have limited pipe runs and they receive the immediate benefit themselves. However, large schemes are very few and far between. In fact, the Battersea Power Station scheme was for many years the only one in the country, but that no longer exists because the station has closed down.
Therefore I ask Members of the Committee to consider this issue very seriously. I say that because if we miss this opportunity to stimulate CHP then there probably will not be another for decades. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I should just like to emphasise the point that we are getting increasingly concerned about the greenhouse effect and the C02 emissions from power stations. Potentially, CHP could provide an enormous saving as regards the coal which we burn. In fact, if the schemes which are considered possible were implemented the saving would amount to something in the region of 17 per cent.
What is so disappointing in this respect is that although the Government say, "Yes, we like the idea of CHP", and despite the fact that they have spent several millions of pounds in assisting some cities to look at the possibility of this concept, when the question of legislation arises they seem to refuse to give any kind of encouragement. This is the time when CHP really might take off with just a little encouragement. I say that because it is probable that many of our power stations will be smaller ones and that will cut down the difficulty of digging up a city and laying the pipes.
I cannot understand why the Government should not agree to CHP being mentioned in the Bill and, as was done on a previous occasion, why they should not agree to do their best to promote—I think that was the phrase we used—the concept. But no, they have turned the opportunity down.
Baroness Hooper: Our difficulty as regards this amendment is the fact that—although we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his explanation of the system; and, indeed, I am a great supporter of CHP as the noble Lord knows—it is not a form of primary energy in itself; it is a process of conversion designed to make the most of the primary fuels used to generate electricity and heat. As such, CHP can be applied to any fuel which raises heat to generate electricity, whether non-fossil or fossil. Electricity generated from CHP schemes will, as I said, count towards the obligation when the fuel upon which it

1549
is based is non-fossil—such as, rubbish burning or landfill gas.
The Government and the Department of Energy have funded an extensive programme to seek to establish the potential for CHP both on a city-wide and on a local basis. Further, the Energy Efficiency Office has been most active on the industrial and commercial front. But, if there is a case for CHP—and we believe that there is—we are of the view that it must pay its own way.
I have already described some of the ways in which our privatisation proposals are specifically designed to encourage competition in generation and ensure that all economic sources of electricity supply will have fair access to the market. All generators, including CHP operators, will have fair and equal access to the transmission and distributing systems after privatisation.
We have also looked carefully at the legislative framework within which a CHP plant has to operate and we have done our best to remove any unnecessary obstacles. I fully appreciate that this amendment has been most carefully drafted so that it extends the benefit of the obligation only to the heat generated by CHP stations, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, explained. That is ingenious, but it does not remove the fundamental difficulty which we have with the amendment.
It is because heat can be produced at the same time as electricity is generated that CHP has an economic advantage over ordinary generation. It is that feature which means that it does not need the protection of the non-fossil fuel obligation. It also introduces considerable complexity into the attribution of a capacity of CHP projects because the obligation is defined in terms of capacity. Not only would measures of heat have to be converted into kilowatt hours, but those kilowatt hours would have to be converted into the equivalent megawatts. That would be a formidable and unavoidably arbitrary calculation in an already complex situation. For those reasons, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Has my noble friend adjusted her mind to the fact that the argument we have just heard is academic and abstract? It comes down to the proposition that because CHP heat is not primary energy it cannot be included in the Bill. That is a theoretical distinction of the Government's own making. The real question is whether we want some extra energy for virtually nothing after the capital has been paid off. If we do, if we want cheaper energy for the country—the Government seem to put up energy prices like anything anyway—why turn our backs on a scheme that works elsewhere? It is being pursued elsewhere. It is a scheme to which there are no environmental objections and which in the end amounts to a saving of fuel. The objection is purely abstract.
If we are told that it will be necessary to convert temperatures into kilowatt hours and then into something else and that that is beyond our capacity,
1550
I suggest that the gentleman who invented the X minus Y formula, or whatever it is called, should be asked to give his mind to it. He produced a formula which was about five inches long. It is not beyond the capacity of someone in the government machine to devise a way of doing the calculation. If the mathematics are the only problem, we must start again.
Perhaps my noble friend will agree to have another look at this point between now and Report stage. I am not trying to be difficult. I am not making fun for the sake of fun. I heartily support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I wonder whether the reply has been sufficient, if I may put it in the nicest possible way.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps I may follow the noble Earl because I agree with him and I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He mentioned Battersea power station. I remember the great enthusiasm with which that scheme was set up and the fact that the heating for a large estate on this side of the river was all provided at a low cost. It was an imaginative scheme.
One of the things mentioned when we talk about non-fossil fuels is waste. When I lived on a farm we had to dispose of our own waste. We used the waste to generate heat by piling it on a large stove. I am not going to suggest that we should return to that, but I suggest that there was an element of scientific knowledge there which we could usefully use. We are despoiling the edges of our cities with the revolting waste that we seem to generate. Surely we have an opportunity to do something which will show how imaginative we are in this vital industry which benefits us all.
Baroness Hooper: We also believe that the Bill provides an opportunity and that is why, as I tried to say, we have endeavoured to create a legislative framework which would enable CHP to compete effectively. I say to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale that we are not turning our backs on the question. We promote the use of CHP in the various ways that I have described. We have created a proper framework within which it can operate. To try to include it within the non-fossil fuel obligation is like comparing apples with pears.
Viscount Hanworth: Here is an opportunity for the Government to do a little to promote this form of heat. It is necessary to do that to get if off the ground. The amendment costs them nothing. I am afraid that the arguments put forward by the Minister have almost no weight. The Government must stand condemned for doing almost nothing to help to reduce the Co2 when there are such possibilities for doing so and when we have an amendment which costs the Government nothing.
Lord Ezra: Having started as vigorously as I could to promote the amendment, I end by feeling dejected. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hanworth that this would have been the opportunity to be imaginative. We have at our disposal potentially a vast amount of energy which could be

1551
produced with no environmental ill effects, based on an existing energy source, which could heat millions of homes, factories and plants throughout the country. There is, however, a capital ·cost associated with getting it there and therefore it should be possible to look on it as a form of energy to be encouraged under the non-fossil fuel obligation. After all, the whole intent of the non-fossil fuel obligation was to maintain and possibly develop nuclear energy, which is highly regarded by the Government, and I fail to see why they cannot regard CHP on the same basis.
I am much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for their support. I am sure that had there been time other noble Lords would have spoken in support of the amendment. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division at this stage, but having heard what has been said I shall take it away and think about what steps to take at a further stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 169E and 169F:
Page 25, line 37, at end insert—
("(6A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above have been made before the day specified in the first order under that subsection, he may certify that those arrangements—

(a) have been made by such one or more public electricity suppliers as are specified in the certificate; and

(b) are such as will secure such a result as is so specified;

and a certificate under this subsection shall be conclusive evidence of the matters stated in it.").
Page 26, line 10, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this section a public electricity supplier shall be regarded as such a supplier in England and Wales or such a supplier in Scotland, according as his authorised area falls wholly or mainly in England and Wales or wholly or mainly in Scotland").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 169G is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 169H.
Viscount Weir Viscount Weir moved Amendment No. 169G:
Page 26, line 15, leave out from ("prescribed;") to end of line 19.
The noble Viscount said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to consider also Amendment No. 169H. The part of the Bill which Amendment No. 169G seeks to remove is that which, to put it in practical everyday terms, permits the Secretary of State to decide that electricity imported from France is nuclear power.
Let me first make it clear that I strongly support the principle that there should be a minimum quota of nuclear power in our electricity supply. That objective is met today by the existing nuclear capacity and in future will be complemented by the PWR programme, starting with Sizewell B, which will replace old reactors as they are phased out and will meet the growth required in nuclear capacity as overall demand grows.
If there are two things which a major nuclear power programme needs they are certainty and continuity: certainty because of the long-term commitments which the industry has to make in specialised technical and manufacturing resources if such a programme is to be successful; and continuity because of the learning curve involved. A large part of the cost of Sizewell B, as the first in a class of stations, is one-off cost. In such circumstances it cannot be sensible if the programme can be disrupted by the Secretary of State arbitrarily operating a clause such as this.
The second practical objection is the cost in foreign exchange. From the 1988 accounts of the CEGB we see that it purchased some £300 million worth of electricity in that year. Allowing for the supplies which it took from Scotland and from other domestic sources, it would look, on a pro rata basis, as though it spent something like £250 million on imports from France.
If the French connection, as one may describe it, were to be doubled we should be talking about something like half a billion pounds a year. Surely, that would be a long-term outflow, as the cost of putting in an additional link could only be supported by a long-term contract. Thus, if the decision is taken to rely on French power—arbitrarily described as nuclear—to make up the nuclear quota, then we should inevitably be talking about a balance of payments cost running into billions of pounds.
This is not a debate on the economy, but given this country's very worrying balance of payments problems I cannot see that such a commitment could make much sense at all when we could perfectly well build the nuclear capacity for ourselves. So for that reason also the clause seems to me to be undesirable.
Finally, if one needs a third common sense objection to the clause, we need look no further than the original White Paper on privatisation. It was sensibly argued there that diversity of supply improved security of supply. But surely, to rely on supplies from France is far from satisfactory in terms of security. Whatever the contract terms, if Electricité de France had to choose in emergency conditions, for example, between supplying its own customers or the UK there can surely be no doubt what its decision would be.
To these three reasons—the uncertainty caused to our nuclear programme, the balance of payments cost and the unsatisfactory security of supply—I should add not a fourth reason but a question. Are we quite satisfied that in any case French nuclear power is not dumped, in international trading terms? There seems therefore to be no good reason why the clause should remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Hood: I wish to support the amendment. It has never seemed to me to be logical that the import of power should be part of the nuclear component. The present contract is a topping up contract. It can be terminated at very short notice—I believe two hours—and that is not generating capacity. We do not know, or at least I do not know what will be the means of entering into contracts in the future. The CEGB will cease to exist and it may

1553
be that contracts will be with generating companies or the grid company, or it may be the 12 area companies which are in a position to enter into the contract. Surely, it would be much better if any supply, whether imported from France or from Scotland, was in the great area of competition, which was one of the main objectives of the Bill, rather than being attached, illogically in my view, to the non-fossil fuel component.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I too wish to support the amendment. It seems to me very odd that the Government should have so strongly resisted the last amendment in giving no place to CHP in their programme and should then deliberately turn round and go in the other direction, being prepared to rely on and give due place to French imports.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Weir that there are too many occasions in which the Government appear to take a lofty and detached view of the need to sustain heavy engineering industry. It is not a matter of giving especially favourable terms to a vested interest, but it is a question in my mind of doing what every other advanced country in the world does—at least taking those opportunities which occur in order to give heavy industry a chance to compete. The emaciated state of the engineering industry in our country stems, to my mind, very largely from the attitude which has been sustained over many years and, if I may say so, under more than one government.
Further, it is the Government's intention to sustain development in the nuclear industry. That was made clear in the White Paper, it is clear on the face of the Bill and I cannot understand why they should not take this chance. When I say "nuclear industry", I mean the domestic nuclear industry. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government should not take the opportunity afforded by the Bill and by their own policies to go ahead, instead of saying, "We'll take such supplies as we can from overseas". I should be most unhappy if the Government were not willing at least to take the amendment away and give it very serious thought in the context of their own policies and of the needs of heavy engineering in this country which has suffered serious neglect over many years.
Lord Trafford: I have some reservations about this matter. Very simply, they are related to treaty rights. It seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that, whatever the intrinsic merits of the amendment from the point of view of the British nuclear industry and so forth, it conforms to treaty rights. I do not have the connections or the knowledge in this field of the Members of the Committee who have just spoken, but of course from the point of view of the industry, as my noble friend Lord Peyton has just said, it might be very beneficial in some respects, particularly for the British nuclear industry, and to pass the amendment would encourage it in some ways.
However, it would almost certainly be contrary to European law by the time the legislation comes into
1554
force effectively. It seems to me that it would be regarded as straight discrimination and would interfere with the competition rules in the EC. I am not making any great plea for the rules nor for anything else. I have views on the subject, but as regards this specific amendment it seems to me that it is most likely to contravene the forthcoming directives. Therefore, whether we like it or not, in effect we should not be able to do it.
Further, I feel strongly that we need to encourage the diversity of supply. I agree with that, and also with the remarks of all three Members of the Committee who have just spoken about the promotion of a nuclear industry in this country. I fully support that. But I am anxious that if we go down this channel or road all that will happen is that we shall run straight into the problems of European directives, irrespective of the good or harm which the amendment might achieve intrinsically, were we to have total independence with regard to investment in the future of the British nuclear industry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I support the amendment. As regards the remarks of the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, what frightens me is that if we are not careful, if we do not pass the amendment we may well hand a monopoly situation to France in the provision of electricity from nuclear power. Members of the Committee will recall the debate which took place some time ago in your Lordships' House on nuclear energy. I spoke in favour of it and I wish once again very briefly to put the three main points which I made then.
I support nuclear energy on the basis that whatever global reserves exist of fossil fuel, oil or other fuels, they are finite. Eventually there will have to be an increasing reliance on nuclear energy. The technology in that particular industry advances fast. As a result, unless we give our own industry the chance to compete at least on equal terms and, if necessary, sometimes on slightly preferential terms, once we fall behind as regards technology we shall stay behind for all time.
If we are talking in terms of exports and reducing our appalling balance of payments deficit in our manufacturing sector, it is essential that we do not lose this potentially expanding industry. It is a known fact that when other countries wish to purchase or place orders for nuclear power stations, they want to see what is on offer in real terms, and not just on paper.
I was a little disturbed to hear this morning when listening to the radio that one of the first announcements to be made on Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Germany concerned the fact that Germany is now to build a new nuclear power station in Russia. I am just making this point as a point of information. If we lose out in this industry, there is no way that we will be in a position to compete in the future, even if we were asked to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, asked, quite rightly, about the treaty rights. What about them? Let us just try our best for our own particular industry. It is a superbly organised industry. Some years ago I used to work on the shop floor in that industry. I

1555
worked on the turbines that were being produced for the first nuclear power stations in this country. I think the least that this Chamber can do is to give a strong indication that we support this industry. As I have said, unless we act and give the industry some kind of protection on a reasonable basis, we could be faced with a monopoly supplier such as France. That situation could, in a general sense, be to the complete detriment of the industry in this country.
Lord Trafford: I support the nuclear power industry, too. However, the noble Lord is saying that the way to support that industry is to give it some kind of special protection. That is contrary to what will probably be required under the rights of the treaty within two-and-a-half years' time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am not suggesting for one moment that we give the industry any special treatment, other than to make sure that it is in a position to be able to compete on a fair and competitive basis. I do not know what kind of system the French would operate. However, although the countries of the EC are to become more unified in the future, some of those countries are not unknown to show more than a little bias towards their own national industries. All I am saying is that we must be very careful what we do here, because if we lose our capacity to produce or build our own nuclear stations, based on a substantial part of our domiciliary market, we could be doing ourselves incalculable damage. Once we fall behind, we shall never be able to catch up.
Viscount Hood: I do not think the amendment conflicts with any European legislation, present or future. There is nothing in the amendment to stop the import of power from France. The amendment merely states that those imports will not be part of the quota of non-fossil fuel generation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: The clause, as it stands, gives protection to French exports of electricity to Britain, however they are generated. That is protectionism. I use the word "1992" as a shorthand for the developments that will follow from that date. However, when the developments of 1992 are running full blast as it were, and there is a free interchange of energy across the Community, this kind of protection will not be possible. This measure must fly in the face of the plans for 1992. I do not begin to understand the purpose of giving the French nuclear industry, or indeed other industry, a particular preference over the industry in this country. I shall be very interested to hear my noble friend's reply. There may be a very good reason for that. I hope that we shall receive a substantial reply.
Lord Peston: I wish to join the debate, especially as one of my amendments is allegedly being debated. The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I have tabled is intended to show that we are being our usual helpful selves to the Government in attempting to improve the clause. The words that we wish to leave out seem to us to add nothing whatever to the Bill, unless one were to add the words, "In such circumstances and to such extent as
1556
may be prescribed to every single clause of the Bill". The existing wording seems to us to be absolutely classic Civil Service-ese and we can do without it.
On the substantial subject, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick have both put their fingers on the central point. We were guided to that by the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, who referred to French electricity being dumped. It is, of course, being dumped. I believe I saw a figure which stated that the nuclear industry had cost the French in excess of £25 billion. In terms of the treaty, that is money down the drain. That cannot be counted now as part of the rules of the game.
Our difficulty, which is part of the hole that the Government are digging themselves into, is that the Government want to protect the nuclear power industry, but cannot do it under the terms of the Treaty of Rome. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, is entirely right. The Government cannot protect the nuclear power industry under the terms of the Treaty of Rome now, but they shall certainly not be able to do it under the terms of the single market in two or three years' time.
The logic of the Government's position, as I see it, is that the Government are stating that on the present economics of nuclear power no private enterprise will build a nuclear power station. It does not make any sense. The Government make that assumption based on what they see happening in the rest of the world. The Government are saying that they would like to have a British nuclear power industry. However, the problem is how the Government will achieve that when they know they cannot break the rules of the treaty. Therefore, the Government invent the concept of diversity. The Government further announce that we cannot leave the private sector to take its own decisions on diversity, so the quota system is invented. It is perfectly obvious what the logic of the whole thing is.
Then the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, pointed out that when the Government add the French dimension, we shall not receive quite as much protection as we thought we were going to receive. He is, of course, entirely right. Therefore, the noble Viscount wishes to leave out the relevant passage in the Bill.
It is very clear that this matter involves the mess that the Government have got themselves into, and the additional mess that has resulted from the Government not accepting our advice, which is not to privatise the nuclear power industry in the first place. We could avoid the whole of the problem by leaving nuclear generation in the public sector, at least for a few years. I believe we shall get a chance to debate that matter next week, so I shall not press it now. Members of the Committee opposite, in their desire to improve matters, should realise that it is their own party which got them into the mess in the first place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I must apologise to the Committee that I was called out of the Chamber when the amendment was moved. However, I know

1557
that the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, has told us in the past that he is very involved in building power stations of this kind. Is that the reason for this amendment, or does it concern an entirely independent matter? No doubt he has declared an interest in this Bill, as I have myself. Why is the noble Viscount so opposed to French generation, and why does he feel that it is so necessary to protect our industry? If we are thinking of the consumers' interest, we must be willing to import this cheaper power.
Viscount Weir: I am not opposed at all to French power, nor indeed to the French power industry, either the generating side of it or the equipment manufacturing side. I, personally, was very involved in the manufacture and design of quite substantial parts of some of the French power stations.
I put this amendment for three simple reasons. First, I thought that it cost a great deal of money in foreign exchange which we could ill afford; secondly, I do not like to repeat myself but I thought that it produced potential uncertainty in an industry which needs certainty; and, Finally, I thought that we did not have an adequate degree of security. I have nothing whatever against the French or French power—I think that they are both splendid.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise that we have already touched upon this subject in relation to earlier amendments. However, I should again like to make clear that, ever since the White Paper, the Government have said that imports will be capable of contributing to the non-fossil fuel obligation in the same way as nuclear capacity from BNFL, the Atomic Energy Authority and Scotland, and renewable capacity. The NFFO is not intended only to support National Power's nuclear programme.
In relation to this specific amendment, as my noble friend Lord Trafford and others have said, we have treaty obligations which do not allow us to do otherwise. With 1992 fast approaching, it would be unwise, to say the least, to think of discriminating against imports of electricity, and we do not intend to do so. Nor is it sufficient to say that imports of electricity will be permitted but that they will not contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation. To link the non-fossil fuel obligation solely to domestic non-fossil capacity could be considered in itself to discriminate against imports.
However, in order to allay the anxieties that have been expressed by many noble Lords in relation to the future of our indigenous nuclear industry and the related engineering industry, perhaps I should explain how supplies from inside the United Kingdom will contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation. The public electricity suppliers will be under an obligation to contract for a specified amount of non-fossil capacity. Indeed, negotiations on contracts are already under way.
In those nuclear contracts in particular, the Government are closely interested in the negotiations to make sure that the contracts contain
1558
incentives to good performance and cost control. As with all the initial supply contracts, the Government will be approving the initial nuclear contracts before they are signed. This clause is drafted on the basis that contracts which will qualify as arrangements under the obligation are contracts for non-fossil fuel generating capacity. It is reasonable to assume that for contracts in the UK both parties will be able to take this into account in drawing up the terms of their contracts. However, this may not be the case where the supplier is from outside the United Kingdom.
I must emphasise in relation to this subsection that there is no intention to give French imports an advantage. I fail to see how my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has managed to deduce that. I would go further and say that any additional supplies above the existing supplies which we receive under the arrangements with France would require a new or further link in order to effect the imports. Therefore the cost of those links would also have to be taken into consideration. While we are talking about the effect of the European Economic Community in this field, let us not forget that in the energy field it is working to greater transparency of prices and that dumping is also contrary to the rules of the European Community.
With regard to the point which has been made by my noble friend Lord Weir more than once as to the effect of French supplies on the balance of payments, we believe that there will be no additional effect. That will of course depend on the price negotiated, but any effect is likely to be small because, as I said, France provides only a small proportion of our supplies at present and any increase would require a further link or links. We believe that competition from the improving performance which we expect from our UK nuclear power stations will help to keep the price down.
Lord Peston: Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is right. Essentially, if the supplying companies have to meet a non-fossil fuel quota, as they do under the Bill, they will certainly want to meet it at least at cost. The fact that the French supply counts against that cost, and that the French supply is provided at marginal cost, which, so far as I can see (because bygones are bygones) the French can do without infringing the Treaty of Rome, means that the companies will buy as much as they can from the French industry at marginal cost. It seems to me that that is exactly the point which the noble Earl made. This arrangement is particularly beneficial to anyone who can supply at least marginal cost. It is a help to them. I do not say that it should not be allowed to happen but it is peculiar that it comes within the quota.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I thank the noble Lord opposite for putting into more academic and intelligent language than I could the point I tried to make. The net result is to give a special advantage to French exports of electricity. I call that protectionism. It may be the wrong term and I may be very stupid, but that is how I understand it.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may go on to explain the existing supplies which we obtain from outside the UK—the only existing outside supplies being through the cross-Channel link from France—and how those are affected. My noble friend Lord Hood referred to the fact that in the past the CEGB has been supplied under a protocol and an associated electricity supply agreement. In future it will be the public electricity suppliers, rather than the generators, who will contract for the power. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just made in relation to the obligation to supply. The sort of contract that they will negotiate may well be different from the UK non-fossil contracts in many significant respects.
That brings me again to the purpose of paragraph (b) of this subsection which is to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to cope with any contract which might be negotiated. The regulations will establish a fair basis on which the contribution a contract for imports of electricity can be assessed for the purposes of the NFFO. The approach may depend on the precise form of the contract, but it is intended to be no more favourable and no less favourable than the basis on which supply contracts in the UK are assessed. I hope that that explanation will enable my noble friend to understand the Government's position and to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Weir: I am afraid that when I put down the amendment I was rather an innocent and I never imagined that the clause was all about the Treaty of Rome. I only put down the amendment for the simple and I hope valid reasons that I have explained. However, I am sympathetic to problems that arise—as they seem so often to do—under the Treaty of Rome, and the last thing I wish to do is to create any additional difficulties.
I ask the Government to look again carefully at this part of the Bill. I am sure that if they did so they could find a way to meet the problems, as I see them, which were the reasons for my tabling the amendment in the first place, and still manage to protect their own position. In the hope that the noble Baroness will do so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169H and 170 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 26, line 19, at end insert—
("(9) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 4 above, any requirement imposed by subsection (1) above to consult with public electricity suppliers in England and Wales or public electricity suppliers in Scotland shall be construed as a requirement to consult with the Area Boards or, as the case may be, the Scottish Boards.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 172ZA:
Leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause:
("Fuel sources.
32.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Director and with public electricity suppliers, by order require each of those suppliers to take steps to ensure that fuel sources and generation technologies available to them are adequate to ensure the long term security of supply to their customers.
(2) Each of the public electricity suppliers shall, in accordance with orders laid down by the Secretary of State, from time to time report to the Director in order to demonstrate to him that the arrangements they have made in respect of these fuel sources and generation technologies available to them—

(a) are adequately contributing to the long term security of supply to their customers; and

(b) have been prudently incurred.").

The noble Lord said: We come to this amendment slightly late in the afternoon. It covers a number of important matters. Happily, we have discussed some of them already, and I shall not add to the tedium of the proceedings by going over all of them again. Again, this is all in the spirit of diversity and security and is not unconnected with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness which we discussed earlier. Indeed, the amendment, which has been put down by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself, simply seeks to replace everything in Clause 32 with our wording which we think is superior.
I wish to emphasise the following aspects of the matter. The first point on which I think our approach is slightly better is that we use the words
"long term security of supply".
We wholly accept that security is of enormous importance. As we have said before, in crude terms, in their homes and firms people expect that, when they switch on the system, electricity comes out. One cannot conceive of a greater failure in that industry than the failure to supply. So we accept the need for security and that diversity is a large part of the key to obtaining security. Perhaps I may add that it is not the only way. Spare capacity is another way of ensuring security, but diversity is fundamental. There is nothing between us there. We wish to emphasise, first, the long-term view. Secondly, following on from that, we believe that it would be better, in order to generalise how we obtain the diversity, simply to say "all possible sources". We think that, in some ways, that is a better form of words.
As we may have discussed in an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we can only obtain that long-term security from those different technologies if there is a suitable research base. One reason for our use of the wording "long term" is to remind the Government of the need for a research base. The environmental aspect of the matter is related to that. At this stage, I do not want to have yet another environmental debate. I am thinking of offering a prize to anyone who can think of a new environmental argument. I cannot think of one, but that does not cause me to under-value not merely the importance of taking the amendment into account, but a further matter which I do not think that we have fully accepted. It relates to my research

1561
point; namely, that, in my judgment, increasingly, in both British and world terms, demands for a better environment will be made more pressing.
We have not yet seen anything like the peak of the environment movement, if I may again use simple language. Although I do not know how to produce secure electricity except using conventional technologies—I wish that that were otherwise—the demands for those conventional technologies—not merely the non-fossil fuel technologies—to be made cleaner will become much stronger. I do not think that Clause 32 as currently drafted does enough along those lines. The pressures on the private generating companies to produce their electricity in a cleaner way will grow and will be intensified. A form of words of the sort that my noble friend and I have put down will guide us in the right direction in that regard.
However, we are not foolhardy in that respect. We are neither being foolhardy in pretending that one can solve all those problems by some kind of extraordinarily clean technology that is lying out there so long as we go and get it quickly, or in saying that we can devote limitless sums of money to the matter. That is why we have used the phrase "prudently incurred". However, we are discussing that as a way to pressurise people in the right direction.
Perhaps I should add, in case the noble Baroness makes the point, that we are well aware that many of the renewable sources of energy have environmental problems. She has probably had the same experience; namely, that, with regard to almost any kind of energy source that I dream up and about which I say to someone, "This looks like a good line", some pressure group will tell me that that destroys precisely the part of the environment with which the group is most concerned. I therefore agree—and am slightly sympathetic to the Government in this matter—that it is much easier to do wrong than to do right in this area. However, having said that, that should not undermine the need for research and the long-term view.
I shall repeat these two points for the last time today. I still hold the view that the energy efficiency dimension has not been taken seriously enough by the Government. It has been apparent from this afternoon's debate that we must agree to differ on that matter. I must raise the question of the European dimension again. I was particularly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, for raising that matter earlier because it had worried me whether the non-fossil fuel commitment would run into European problems. I do not know whether that would be interpreted by the Commission as a distortion of competition. That is separate from supporting the nuclear industry directly. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has taken advice on the matter. If she has not, we shall certainly wait to hear a more definitive statement from her in due course. But I have an uneasy feeling that, as we think we are going through this part of the Bill with no problems, people are lurking in Brussels, scrutinising the legislation and saying, "If the British think that they will get away with distorting the fuel market by
1562
inventing these things, they will not". Again, I must put that matter hypothetically. I might easily be wrong. It may well be that the department of the noble Baronesss has already taken the best legal advice and that we do not have to worry about the matter.
Perhaps I may now turn to my final point in energy efficiency. In a way, it is pleasing to economists, but not pleasing to most other people. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has read the article on energy efficiency in the current number of Economic Trends. If not, perhaps I may recommend it to her. It is a superb article written by an economist in her own department. It demonstrates that there has been a drastic improvement in what I believe is called the energy ratio—that is, ratio of the energy used to GDP in the economy—but it seems to have been a once-for-all improvement. It seems to have occurred for one reason and one reason only; namely, the oil price rise and the consequent rise in the relative price of energy. Having knocked that into the system and made energy more expensive, we achieved an improvement in energy efficiency, but there seems to be little else going on. I mention that point at this stage partly because the work has come from the department of the noble Baroness and partly as a warning about how difficult it is to achieve energy efficiency, or at least how difficult it is to achieve by exhortation and general waving of hands.
Those are the main points that I wish to make under this heading. I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The effect of the amendment would be to replace the non-fossil fuel obligation with a duty on the public electricity suppliers to take measures to ensure that their fuel sources and generation technologies are adequate to ensure that the long-term security of supply of their customers is protected, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has explained.
However, the amendment gives the public electricity suppliers no guidance as to how they may fulfil that duty. We believe that it would not be fair on the public electricity suppliers. They are—or will be—private sector companies which quite naturally, given no constraints, would be looking for the cheapest source of generation. We accept that nuclear power is currently—and I emphasise the word "currently"—not the cheapest form of generation, but we believe that it has a vital role to play in maintaining the level of diversity, which is something that we have enjoyed in the past and wish to see continued. Were it not for nuclear power, we should have found it much more difficult to keep the lights on during the miners' strike, we should be unprotected against any future rises in fossil fuel prices and we should be needlessly adding to the greenhouse effect. At this point I shall go no further on the environmental front either.
That is why there is and always has been a clear government commitment to nuclear power. Without a clear statement of the importance which the Government rightly attach to nuclear power, the public electricity suppliers would have no certainty

1563
on which to plan and invest. That certainty, as we have already heard in relation to a previous amendment, is vital to them. They cannot be expected to sign contracts leading to the construction of new nuclear power stations unless they know that what they are doing will not be open to challenge by the director or the Secretary of State.
This amendment would put them in a quite impossible situation. They might decide that it is necessary to contract for new nuclear power stations to replace the Magnox stations as they are retired only to find subsequently that the Director General of Electricity Supply decides that they ought not to have done that. Or they might decide not to contract for some renewable capacity only to find later that the Secretary of State has decided that they should have done so. Or, worse still, the Secretary of State and the director may not agree on what they should have done.
The only way to give the public electricity suppliers the certainty that they need in order to plan and invest is to set down quite unequivocally in legislation what they have to do to meet their obligation. This is what we are doing to Clause 32 and the orders which are to be made under it. We shall have clearly set out the Government's priorities for all to see so that the public electricity suppliers can plan with certainty.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord by adding that, obviously, we have considered our European treaty obligations in this connection. Although it may be an on-going situation, when one is approaching it in a fresh way one must always look at it afresh. We believe that the provisions of the Bill are within the requirements of those obligations. I hope that what I have said is sufficient to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely clear exposition. She has of course made it very clear that it is a matter of protecting the nuclear industry. We are back on that track. The argument is not about non-fossil fuels, because our amendment puts all the fuels on a par. Nonetheless, the noble Baroness makes it clear—and I do not say that she is mistaken—that we do not have a level playing field but one on which the bias lies toward the nuclear industry.
I am glad to hear that the advice that her department has received is that there is no European problem at this point. My own advice is that there may be a problem. I hope that there is not because I too do not wish to see the end of our nuclear industry. All that one can say on this matter, as one often has to do from this side of the Committee, is that we have uttered our words of warning. Certainly if the Government run into trouble on this matter we shall not hesitate to get into the I-told-you-so business.
Having done our duty in scrutinising this section of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Fossil fuel levy]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 172A and 172B:
Page 26, line 21, after ("above") insert ("in relation to public electricity suppliers in England and Wales, or public electricity suppliers in Scotland").
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("persons authorised by a licence to supply electricity") and insert ("such suppliers, and on persons authorised by a licence under section 6(2) above to supply electricity within the authorised area of such a supplier,").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 172A and 172B en bloc. These amendments have already been spoken to.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 172C:
Page 26, line 26, leave out ("public electricity") and insert ("such").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 26, line 37, leave out from second ("the") to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("day appointed by the first order under section 32 above which has effect in relation to the supplier").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 173C, 173D, 173G, 173H and 173K. It may be helpful at this point if I explain a little about our proposals for the fossil fuel levy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If I may intervene for a moment, the noble Baroness has already spoken to Amendment No. 173A.
Baroness Hooper: I apologise to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 173B:
Page 26, line 41, after first ("the") insert ("total").
The noble Baroness said: I shall not start my comments all over again but I shall try to explain, since this is a complex issue, something about our proposals for the fossil fuel levy. As I have already explained, Clause 32 permits the Secretary of State to impose an obligation on public electricity supply companies to secure a minimum amount of non-fossil fuel generating capacity. This will ensure that diversity is maintained. However, I have explained that there may well be an additional cost associated with such diversity. If so, it would impose higher costs on public electricity supply companies compared with their competitors who would be free to meet their own electricity supply requirements at lowest cost. This would distort competition between the public electricity supply companies and their competitors and would lead to the possibility that they could lose market share because they could not match their competitors' prices.
Therefore, in essence, the levy is designed to recover from suppliers the difference between the cost of non-fossil capacity purchased in pursuit of the non-fossil fuel obligation and the cost of purchasing an equivalent amount of fossil capacity.
Contracts for existing and planned nuclear capacity are in the process of being negotiated at present. It is not yet possible to be clear what form payments under those contracts may take. It is possible that payments will be made only in months when electricity is actually generated. On the other hand, it may be financially advantageous for some payments to be made during the period of construction of the stations or during times when the stations are undergoing maintenance or are shut down for some other reason. This is of course a matter for negotiation between the area boards and National Power. The Government will have to approve the terms of the contracts to ensure that there are suitable incentives to good performance and that customers' interests are protected.
There has been a lot of misguided speculation about what will be the size of the levy and its impact on electricity prices. The cost of nuclear power is already in the price of electricity as we have it today. What the fossil fuel levy does is not to add to the cost of electricity but to identify that part of the cost of electricity which is the cost of diversity, as I have explained. However, for the first time we are making this cost transparent.
It is not possible at present to say what the initial rate of levy will be. Prices for nuclear and fossil-fuel power have still to be negotiated. To attempt to estimate the levy now would be mere idle speculation. We hope that the initial rate of levy will be announced when contracts have been signed towards the end of the year. What I can say however is that as a consequence of the high-cost Magnox stations being closed down and the PWRs coming on stream over the next decade, we believe that the levy is likely to get smaller.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It will be smaller than what?
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The levy will be smaller than it will be at the outset when we have the cost of the Magnoxes to take into account.
I speak to the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 173B, 173C, 173D, 173G, 173H and 173J. I do not think that I listed the amendments correctly at the outset. Having explained the thinking behind the fossil fuel levy, clearly to achieve its aim the calculation of the levy must be capable of including all the additional costs which the public electricity suppliers might have to bear as a result of being asked to contract for the non-fossil capacity which they might otherwise not choose. It would be quite wrong for the drafting of the Bill either to leave additional costs to be borne by the public electricity supply companies or to constrain the form which the contracts for non-fossil capacity might take.
For these reasons, Members of the Committee will know that we have been endeavouring, by amendments already introduced in another place, to make sure that the calculation of the levy is capable of encompassing all possible payments under those contracts. It was for this reason that the Government
1566
introduced into Clause 33 the definition of "advance payments". Amendments Nos. 173B, 173C, 173D, 173H and 173K simply complete that job. They make clear that if there are to be any costs which are due under the contract after the non-fossil station has stopped generating, or while it is temporarily out of action for repairs and maintenance, as I have described, these will not be excluded in the calculation of the levy. Of course we are all aware that nuclear power has clear-up costs which extend long after the station has stopped generating. It may therefore be that the contracts will also include provision for payments after generation has ceased.
It may also be that the contracts will provide bonus payments if the generators achieve high levels of performance or if they build new stations ahead of schedule. It is clearly important for performance bonuses like these to be capable of coming within the levy. I must stress that this does not in any way prejudge whether such payments will exist. The contracts for non-fossil power are currently being negotiated. While the Government will approve the initial contracts, they do not wish to stand in the way of sensible financial arrangements if these are in the interests of the consumer. These amendments are therefore made on a contingency basis, in case they include such payments.
I trust that members of the Committee will see that this is a prudent course to take and will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are embarking here on the vexed question of the levy. The noble Baroness has done her best to explain exactly what the levy is about and why these amendments are necessary. If I heard her aright, she said that the cost of nuclear power was already in the system. That is certainly true. The grid runs a cost merit order. It brings in nuclear power as a base load because there is a marginal cost which is very low. If one moves to a price merit order, and one builds into the price which is quoted to the grid all the amortisation costs of the capital and so on on the nuclear power stations, one will have a quite different figure. One will not have the marginal cost which is in the cost merit order operated by the grid at the moment.
What we are talking about in the fossil fuel levy is quite different from the cost of nuclear power that is already in the system. If the noble Baroness can persuade me that I am wrong on this, I shall be very happy to listen to her. I do not believe that I am wrong.
She also stated that it is idle speculation even to worry about what the levy might be. All she can say is that when the Magnox systems are retired and the PWRs are brought in the levy will be smaller than it may be at some stage in the future. We do not know the figure. She then stated that there could be advance or deferred payments. She specified that the payments could be after generation had ceased, so that a Magnox station such as Berkeley which has been shut down very recently, which will stop producing electricity—a number of Magnox stations will be decommissioned in the reasonably near future—will still bear a cost and will still be part of this levy to be imposed on public electricity suppliers

1567
and consumers. We are told that we do not know, and cannot know until contracts are signed, what this levy will be. We are told that the Secretary of State will exercise many vague powers under the clause as drafted and that the levy will be fixed by a method and in a manner which remain to be seen. The consequences also remain to be seen.
We are discussing a Bill which is going before Parliament in its final stages. It has been through another place and is now before this Chamber. The Government seem unable to do better than simply to say, "The levy will be something or other. We do not quite know what it will be. It will be this, and somehow we shall fudge it all at the end of the day". If that is what the Government are saying they ought to have another look at it. Protection of the British nuclear industry is a fundamental feature of the Bill. Until we, and the public, know what the cost of that is I do not believe that the Government have a serious argument for the clause.
I ask the noble Baroness whether she will be very kind and consider the clause. When we come to another stage of the Bill perhaps she can tell us a little more than she has been able to do today about what will happen. How will the Government deal with the issue? How will the Secretary of State deal with it? What are the methods of calculation? I assure the noble Baroness that we shall not let this one go.
Lord Trafford: It seems that the noble Lord has put one or two words into my noble friend's mouth. As I understand it, she stated that today, when electricity supply is in the public sector, if one buys one unit of electricity at a cost of, say, 10p (to make matters simple), under the system on which the levy was introduced the cost of one unit of electricity to the consumer would still be 10p. The difference would be that it would be declared more accurately to be a cost of 8p from fossil fuels and a cost of 2p from nuclear power. However, the total cost to the consumer would be unchanged. In other words, the total bill is unchanged. There is now to be identification of the cost from fossil fuels and the cost from non-fossil fuels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may answer that point. If I have put words into the noble Baroness's mouth she is perfectly capable of responding on her own account. I do not believe that I did. I wrote down very carefully what she was saying.
On the question of cost, the noble Lord has to distinguish between full and marginal cost. I do not wish to give the noble Lord a lecture in economics; he understands the subject perfectly. At the moment we have a marginal cost system into the grid. What is proposed is a full total cost system into the grid.
Lord Trafford: I take the point that the noble Lord is making. Obviously my noble friend will say whether or not she thought that words were being put into her mouth. I thought she was saying that the total cost to the consumer would not be different.
The noble Lord speaks of the different marginal costs. It depends very largely on how one makes
1568
these calculations. In that respect I accept what he says: that as time goes by the more we learn about how the calculations are made the better able we are to make a judgment. That must be true of nearly all calculations.
The other factor on which the noble Lord is perhaps not very forthcoming is that the price of other fuels—the fossil fuels, in other words—could also change for a variety of reasons. We saw what happened dramatically in one respect in the 1970s with the oil prices. There could be considerable changes. I do not disagree with the noble Lord that one of the aims we wish to achieve through the Bill and in the future of the electricity industry as a whole is the protection and development of nuclear power. We regard that as very important.
Many Opposition Members share our view of the significance of the generation of power from nuclear sources in the future. It is my personal feeling that it will become increasingly important as the decades go by. It is therefore very important that we get this right straight away so that we do not lose that capacity as time passes. I was thinking that perhaps the noble Lord had been a little unfair in the interpretation he put upon what my noble friend said about the levy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again I must respond to that because the noble Lord criticised me quite properly for what I said. I have no objection to that. What I am saying is that under the present system the nuclear side of the generating industry feeds electricity into the grid at marginal cost. Furthermore it is almost impossible to shut down nuclear stations at will if suddenly the grid decides that in the cost merit order Heysham B is no longer interesting. One cannot just shut down a nuclear station in the way that one can shut down conventional stations. The noble Lord only has to go to the National Power Centre at Bankside to look at this. The base load at the moment is provided by the nuclear system. It is justifiable economically on the basis of marginal cost.
Once one loads onto that marginal cost an element of all the other costs which have been amortised and written off, there is then a completely different equation. The problem that the Government have to face is that when there is a completely different equation—as the noble Baroness quite rightly said (I am not putting words in her mouth)—nuclear power becomes much more expensive than conventional power. But that only happens when you load in all those costs which have been amortised and written off and not put into the cost at which nuclear power stations sell to the grid. Thus there is this problem that in the future in a total cost system based on a price merit order rather than a cost merit order, some nuclear stations will not be as competitive as conventional stations.
Nuclear stations cannot be shut down. That is why there has to be this extraordinary levy, tax or whatever it is in order to keep them going as they are at present.
I hope I am not saying anything with which the noble Baroness disagrees, because I believe that we all clearly understood what she said. However I am

1569
saying that we find it odd that we should suddenly be faced with a new tax (which is what it is) just because the accounting conventions of who feeds what into the grid at what time are being changed.
Baroness Hooper: I do not believe that I can usefully add to these arguments that I put forward in proposing the amendment in the first place. As the noble Lord has said, we shall be returning to this argument again. I therefore commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 173C and 173D:
Page 27, line 1, after ("the") insert ("total").
Page 27, line 5, leave out from ("and") to ("payments") in line 6 and insert ("including any advance or deferred payments other than, in the case of the cost mentioned in paragraph (a) above,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173E not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 173F:
Page 27, line 19, at end, insert—
("( ) Regulations made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This terminates the discussion that we have had on the previous amendments because the noble Baroness said that we would all know the truth when the contracts were signed. There would be a great revelation of what the levy would be and how the costing would all work. All I am asking in my amendment is that the Secretary of State should tell Parliament. I am not saying that it should be by affirmative procedure. I am simply asking that Parliament should be informed of how all this will be calculated. It is clear that no one knows how it will be calculated at the moment. I should like Parliament to be told when we know. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am happy to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in saying that he is wise to seek to ensure that regulations made under this clause are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am pleased to assure him that this has been provided for. To be precise, Clause 101 provides that any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Bill:
"shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
Any regulations made under Clause 35(5) will be scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Members of both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to debate any such regulations if they so wish. I trust that that explanation meets the noble Lord's concerns and that he will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I apologise if I have detained the Committee on what was an otiose amendment. It seemed to me important to make sure that I knew the facts. If the noble Baroness assures me that it is covered by the Bill as drafted I am very happy with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 173G:
Page 27, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 27 and insert ("any payment made or expense incurred in relation to a particular generating station before electricity is first generated by that station").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 173H, 173J and 173K:
Page 27, line 28, at end insert—
(""deferred payment" means any payment made or expense incurred in relation to a particular generating station after electricity ceases to be generated by that station;").
Page 27, line 31, leave out from ("arrangements"") to ("satisfy") in line 34 and insert ("in relation to a public electricity supplier, means any arrangements evidence of the making of which he has produced to the Director in pursuance of an order under section 32 above and which—

(a) were made jointly with one or more other public electricity suppliers; and

(b)").

Page 27, line 36, leave out from first ("month") to end of line 39 and insert ("in relation to a public electricity supplier or a person authorised by a licence under section 6(2) above to supply electricity within the authorised area of such a supplier, means a month beginning on or after the day appointed by the first order under section 32 above which has effect in relation to that supplier").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Fossil fuel levy]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 173L:
Page 27, line 42, after ("any") insert ("licensed").
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 173M and 174A. The purpose of the amendment is to safeguard the position of those who generate largely for their own use. It seems quite unnecessary for the Secretary of State to lay down standards for stockholdings of those who are generating in such a way that only a small amount of their output is used externally. As the clause stands any generator with a generating capacity of
"not less than 50 megawatts or such other capacity (not exceeding 100 megawatts) as the Secretary of State may by order specify"
will be caught under the provisions of the subsection, irrespective of whether all or part of the electricity generated is for own use.
I believe that the implications of this are far-reaching, because it means that the Secretary of State will determine what people do when running their own internal businesses. There could be no end to that kind of intervention.
Companies outside the electricity supply industry who generate electricity primarily for their own consumption should surely be the best judges of their strategic fuel stocks. Therefore the purpose of these amendments is to apply this purely to the amount

1571
of electricity which is externally supplied. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): I note what the noble Lord said in moving the amendments. It may be helpful if I respond by linking together Amendments Nos. 173L, 173M and 174A.
As the noble Lord has explained, their purpose is to apply the fuel stocking and other provisions of Clause 34 to those generating stations which have an export capability of 50mW rather than just an installed capability at that level. I note that he suggests that waste fired plants which have the capability to include an element of fossil fuel burn as part of their normal operations, or which have capability to run on fossil fuels as a back up to their main fuel source, should be exempted from the scope of this clause.
Fuel stocking powers are primarily designed to overcome any unforeseen interruptions to fuel supplies to power stations and to ensure, as far as possible, that supplies of electricity can be maintained to consumers. It is for this reason that we need to look not only to the level of electricity supplies that a generator can make available to the grid, but also to the demands that a generator might make on the grid for supply to himself should he not be able to generate through a shortage of available fuel. Let us take as an example a generator with a total capacity of 90mW. Of this he may export half and retain half for his own uses. If this amendment were accepted he would be excluded from the scope of Clause 34. However, in a fuel shortage not only would the public supply system lose the 45mW that had been available for export but in all likelihood that generator would look to the public supply system to make good the 45mW that he himself consumes. It would clearly be inequitable if a number of such generators were able to require supplies, at short notice, from the public supply system without having contributed to the national stocking obligations. It would clearly be wrong, where such generators took from the supply system, that they should be able to ride on the back of others who had made prudent fuel stocking arrangements.
It is essential on a national basis in the interest of ensuring continuity of electricity supplies that full account is taken of the additional demands that might be made on the system as a result of fuel shortages as well as the loss of potential supply to the system. It is for this reason that Clause 34 is framed in terms of 50mW of installed capacity. It is also for this reason that the clause distinguishes between any generating station with a capacity of 50mW and licensed generators. I put it to the noble Lord that, by qualifying the fuel mix with the word "principally", his amendment introduces an unwelcome degree of uncertainty into the regime. However, more importantly the amendment is unnecessary in practical terms because these stations are in general too small to be caught by the generating capacity figure of 50mW and would therefore be exempt from directions anyway.
Where however these plants do meet the capacity criteria—and in looking to the future it is not
1572
impossible that larger commerical waste-fired plants may be built—I think it is important that we do preserve a degree of flexibility. We must be able to look carefully at each case on its merits and have the ability to direct such stations in circumstances where their fossil-fuel capability could be of use during a period of fuel shortage. I repeat however that the cases where these plants will be of a size to be covered by the terms of this clause will be few and far between. Nevertheless where a plant is large enough I hope your Lordships will agree with me that they should if necessary, play their part in helping to ensure security of supply.
I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment on the grounds that the practical effect of the clause as drafted, given the present size of the generating capacity in question, is such that such stations would be excluded anyway. But, looking to the future, we do not want to lose flexibility in being able to include such plant were its capacity to warrant it.
Lord Ezra: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that detailed response. I should like to study it and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173M not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 27, line 43,. leave out from ("megawatts") to ("and") in line 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 174A not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 27, line 48, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the capacity mentioned in paragraph (a) there were substituted such other capacity (not exceeding 100 megawatts) as may be specified in the order.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 28, line 42, leave out subsections (6) to (8).
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 175B. This amendment simply recognises the important role that the national grid company will play in maintaining electricity supplies in times of dislocation to fuel supplies. The NGC will be responsible for ensuring that electricity is transmitted to where it is needed. That is to the consumers.
The powers in Clause 34 are primarily directed to the operators of generating stations, not the operator of the national grid. Nevertheless, Members may have noted that subsection (5) of Clause 34 allows directions to generators effectively to include obligations with which the NGC must also comply. There is therefore already an indirect power to direct the NGC.
The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power to require the NGC to advise in general terms about the exercise of the powers in Clause 34.

1573
The NGC will be uniquely placed, given its general obligation to balance supply and demand, to liaise with generating companies and distribution companies and provide advice on how the system is operating, how fuel stocks compare with demand on the system, and so forth.
In times of fuel shortage the importance of this role will be all the greater. Therefore, I hope that Members will agree that these powers are a necessary complement to those already in Clause 34. Taken together, they represent an effective and flexible means of combating fuel supply dislocations which may otherwise threaten electricity supplies to consumers. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are embarking on an important amendment concerning the national grid. I have no objection to subsection (1) of the noble Lord's new clause in Amendment No. 175B. However, I look cautiously as subsection (2) of his new clause, which authorises the Secretary of State to give a direction to the national grid:
"to operate [his] transmission system, at any time when a direction under section 34(3) is enforced, either in a specified manner or with a view to achieving specified objectives".
Presumably, the specified manner and the specified objectives are to be specified by the Secretary of State in his direction.
The noble Lord quickly skated over that point in introducing the amendment. It is actually proposed that, through the grid, the Secretary of State can make the company responsible for security of supply. If that is the noble Lord's proposal the whole question of security of supply is turned on its head. Until now we have been told that the grid has no responsibility and that the public electricity suppliers have the responsibility for the security of supply. I and Members from all parts of the Committee have argued that that proposal will not work. Now the Government appear to be conceding the case and saying that the Secretary of State can tell the grid that, in the event of a breakdown of some kind, it is responsible. Does that not go against everything that we have heard in previous debates?
If that is the case we are in a new situation which we shall be delighted to discuss. There is no a priori objection to the proposition but it appears to be important and to merit further argument.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I had intended to convey to him that we envisage that the National Grid Company would wish to do nothing other than co-operate in times of fuel shortage but, for example, the grid or part of the grid might need to be operated in a special way which goes beyond strictly normal technical criteria as specified in the grid code in the case of emergencies.
This amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to ensure, as the noble Lord said, that that could happen and would also provide the grid company the comfort that if it were required to go beyond normal operating critieria, it can do so safe in the knowledge that there is a clear legal
1574
requirement on it so to do. In other words, we are trying to make sure in every possible way that there is no loophole in the case of an emergency.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I can clarify this matter with the noble Lord, and perhaps he will give me a yes or no answer to the question which I am about to put. Under this new clause, will the Secretary of State be entitled to direct the grid, whether or not in an emergency, to operate in a certain way so as to ensure security of supply?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, we are talking about a special situation where certain powers have to be taken.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In that case, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that the wording of subsection (2) of his new clause is perhaps too broad for what he has in mind.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I believe that the wording in subsection (2) of the new clause which we propose is not too broad. However, I shall take the opportunity, having heard what the noble Lord said, to look very closely at this with legal advice and at that stage to decide whether it is too broad. As I understand it, it is not too broad for the circumstances which we see may occur.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not a legal expert but a layman. However, as I read the clause, it gives the Secretary of State power to direct the grid in a completely different manner which cuts right across other provisions in the Bill. I am most grateful that the noble Lord has accepted that this is a matter which the Government may wish to consider.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: Members of the Committee may feel that we have reached the right moment at which to break, and I suggest that we return to this Bill in one hour at five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
7.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft order which was laid before the House on 9th May 1989 be approved.
This is the first of two orders before the House this evening. The second is the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential

1575
Amendments) Order 1989. As the second is consequential upon the first, I am sure it would be convenient, if your Lordships permit, if I deal with both orders together.
The substantive order, the Treatment of Offenders Order, contains a package of measures which, taken together, will widen the powers of courts in Northern Ireland to deal with both young and adult offenders. Some of these are concerned with non-custodial measures which will provide the courts with alternatives to custody.
An important example is to be found at Article 3 of the order which will extend the powers of the courts to attach what are commonly known as "fourth conditions" to probation orders. This follows similar provisions for England and Wales in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and will enable the court to make it a condition of a probation order that the offender attends an activity centre or a day centre for a maximum of 60 days. It is hoped that this provision will be used by the courts as an alternative to custody.
Article 10 has the same aim and will reduce the age for community service from 17 to 16 years of age. Again this is similar to the change which was introduced for England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
That Act also provided reciprocal arrangements between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that courts anywhere in the United Kingdom could impose a community service order where it was known that the offender intended to reside in another jurisdiction within the UK. Because the age for community service in Northern Ireland would be 17, whereas it would be 16 in the rest of the UK, the 1982 Act imposed a restriction on courts in Great Britain—and I am sure your Lordships will accept that that is England, Scotland and Wales—to ensure that community service orders imposed on persons intending to reside in Northern Ireland were confined to persons aged 17 or over. As the effect of the Treatment of Offenders Order will be to make 16 the age for community service throughout the UK, that restriction is no longer necessary and is removed by the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order. I hope the House will agree that I have dealt logically with this.
I shall now return to the remaining provisions of the substantive order. Articles 6, 7 and 13 deal with custodial sentences and remands in custody of young offenders. Article 6 will reduce the maximum period of detention in a training school from three years to two years, and it will also reduce the period within which the consent of the Secretary of State is required before release on licence from 12 months to six months. The effect of this change should be to reduce the average period of detention in a training school.
Under existing law a young adult between the ages of 17 and 21 who receives a custodial sentence may only serve it in a young offenders' centre if it is for less than three years. Sentences of three years or more must be served in a prison. As the young offenders' centre is better suited to the needs of
1576
young adults and, as the only young offenders centre in Northern Ireland has some spare capacity, Article 7 will increase the maximum period of detention which can be served there from three years to four years.
Spare capacity at the young offenders' centre will also enable it to accommodate a number of young adults who are remanded in custody. At present all persons aged 17–21 who are remanded in custody are held at Belfast Prison. However, as the Young Offenders' Centre will not be able to accommodate all young adults—and indeed it would not in any case be suitable for the more serious or a terrorist-type (scheduled) offender—Article 13 gives the Secretary of State a discretion to decide which of those young adults held on remand should be transferred to the young offenders' centre.
Having dealt with Articles 3, 6, 7 and 13 I bring your Lordships back to Article 4, on page 4 of the substantive order. Article 4 also relates to young offenders and will amend the law to provide that where a juvenile is jointly charged with an adult he may be referred to the juvenile court for both trial and sentence if the adult defendant pleads guilty and the juvenile pleads not guilty. Under existing law a juvenile charged jointly with an adult must be tried in an adult court and may only be referred to the juvenile court for sentence. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, in those circumstances, it is preferable that young offenders should be dealt with by the juvenile court which is better constituted to meet their needs.
Article 5 deals with attendance centre orders and makes a number of amendments which should improve the effectiveness of such orders.
I apologise for taking your Lordships on a treasure hunt through the order but I should like to draw the attention of the House to an additional amendment following receipt of comments on the proposal for this draft order. Our attention was drawn to the fact that as the law stands there is no appeal against an alternative sentence imposed following breach of an attendance centre order. This mild lacuna is dealt with in paragraph 26 of Schedule I to the order, which amends Article 140 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and remedies that defect. Therefore we are referring to an attendance centre order coupled with Article 5, and that is why I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for taking him through the order in this fashion.
I now turn to Articles 8 and 9 of the order. Article 8 will abolish the common law power of the courts to record sentences and Article 9 will replace that with an enhanced power to suspend sentences. Recorded sentences which are peculiar to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are similar to suspended sentences in that sentence can be deferred while the convicted person enters into an obligation to be of good behaviour during a specified period. However, in the case of the recorded sentence there is no limit on either the sentence or the period during which the person may be bound over. In addition, it lacks the flexibility of a suspended sentence as it must be—it is compulsory—reactivated in full if the person reoffends within the operational period.

1577
Because of that inflexibility we feel that injustices can arise if, for example, there is a subsequent conviction for a trivial and quite unrelated offence which reactivates the recorded sentence. We therefore consider that the power to suspend sentences is more satisfactory and the new provisions in Article 9 will achieve that.
I now turn to Article 11 of the order, which amends the powers of the courts to defer sentence. By providing that the period of deferment will run from the date on which it is announced rather than, as at present, from the date of conviction, the defendant will obtain the benefit of the full six months period to enable him to demonstrate to the court—for example, by making reparation for his offence or by a change in his circumstances such as finding a job or, I am advised, by getting married—that he has both the desire and the ability to stay out of trouble. This amendment is similar to that introduced for England and Wales by the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Finally, Article 12 will increase the maximum penalty for a number of offences to bring them into line with similar penalties which are available to the courts in England and Wales. Those offences are given on pages 13 and 14 of the order. The maximum penalty for indecent assault on a female will be increased from two years to 10 years and the maximum term of imprisonment for attempted rape or assault with intent to commit rape is to be increased from seven years to life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for child cruelty, which was increased recently for England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, is to be increased from two years to 10 years.
While the provisions of the two orders are of a somewhat varied nature—as I am sure noble Lords appreciate—taken together they will form a package which we believe will provide the criminal courts in Northern Ireland with useful additions to their powers to determine the best manner of dealing with both young and adult offenders.
I apologise for taking your Lordships back and forth through the two orders and I thank noble Lords for all the good will shown to me. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing the order and throwing light on its provisions. I believe that it is an important step in the right direction. Moreover, it provides us with an opportunity to raise a few questions and to emphasise our continuing concern about the treatment of juvenile and young offenders in Northern Ireland.
It would have been helpful if the Minister had been able to give the House a perspective of the position of young offenders in Northern Ireland and to tell us how the Government see the new provisions being applied by the courts; but we have not been given that perspective, though that is not intended as a personal criticism of the Minister. However, we
1578
are indebted to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for the briefing it has prepared and circulated in anticipation of the debate on the order.
The board reminds us that the Northern Ireland crime rate is less than that in 40 of the 42 police forces in England and Wales. That is surprising but encouraging news. However, the board also alerts us to the fact that after allowing for terrorist offences the 16 to 20 year-old age group constitutes a higher proportion of the prison population in Northern Ireland than in any other European country. Clearly that is a worrying and disturbing fact. It gives us some sense of the nature and the scale of the problem facing Northern Ireland. Why should so many young people be in gaol? Should so many young people be sent to gaol? Why are so many fine defaulters imprisoned? I should like to know how the Government answer those questions. Is it too much to expect the department to set up a study to consider how the number of young offenders who end up within prison walls can be substantially reduced in the short term?
We support the Government's policy of encouraging non-custodial penalties for juvenile and young offenders. Custody must be the very last resort; but what kind of offender and what kind of offences will attract the three different sentences and extended sentence provided for by Articles 3, 5 and 10 respectively? Who shall receive a probation or supervision order with a fourth condition attached? Who shall go to the attendance centre or the day centre? Who shall receive a community service order?
The Minister may say, "Well, ultimately this decision will be left to the local court". Of course there will be variation in practice. Nevertheless, will any guidance be issued to the courts? Will guidance be issued as regards the grounds on which a particular period at the attendance or day centre is to be determined? Will there be guidance on the particular length of a community service order that is to be imposed? Are the Government seeking to achieve a unified pattern of tariff or treatment in Northern Ireland so that offenders in different parts of the Province shall not be subjected to materially different treatment under the same order? In other words, will there be an overall strategy or haphazard development?
I understand that there will be only one attendance centre in the whole of the Province and that it will be in Belfast. Am I correct in assuming that the option of attending at an attendance centre will therefore not be available for offenders west of the Bann? If that is so, why are they to be denied the opportunity? Is it a satisfactory answer to say that offenders in this area are too small in number? Are they too small to matter? As regards day centres, are the Government satisfied that the probation board and the voluntary bodies will be adequately financed to provide a network of such centres throughout the province?
Finally, I turn to the community service orders. There is evidence that the courts in Northern Ireland and on the mainland have been giving longer community service orders when the offender is

1579
unemployed. That is worrying. Surely the fact of unemployment itself should not justify a longer community service order than would otherwise be expected. There is a risk that the community service order may be abused in such a way and it indicates the need for the continuous monitoring of how the relevant provisions of the order are being used by the courts. I should be grateful if the department can give consideration to this point.
We want this order to be effective. It will be effective if it is used by the courts as an alternative to custody and not as an alternative to fines. If in 12 months' time the statistics show that the number of juvenile and young offenders who are within the walls of prisons in Northern Ireland has been substantially reduced, that will be some evidence of its success. I wish to pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Northern Ireland Probation Board and the 300 staff employed by it. They are playing a significant part in the system of criminal justice in the Province.
We have noted with great satisfaction that the board welcomes the challenge presented by this order. That is not surprising as it is committed to a developed juvenile justice policy that provides alternatives to custody. Experience may show that the board wants additional resources, but that is not called for at the moment. I also wish to place on record our appreciation of the contribution of the many voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland who are working in enlightened partnership with the probation board. On behalf of these Benches I am pleased to give this order our full support.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there will be no great controversy about this order. The Minister will be aware that when it was debated in another place by elected representatives from Northern Ireland there was no serious disagreement. There was total unaniminity on one aspect; namely, there was agreement that the legislation to deal with the problem of young offenders was introduced in a piecemeal way. I believe that it was stressed by the Minister in his reply that the Government were intent on introducing further legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
It was then stated that an order was a very unsatisfactory way to cope with this problem and that any further legislation should be by way of a Bill rather than by an order introduced in the late hours of a sitting in another place. I believe that there is some validity in that request in the absence of a devolved Parliament in Stormont. I bitterly regret the absence of a devolved Parliament at Stormont. I despair at ever seeing one again in Northern Ireland. I had hoped that there would be a devolved government, but by the actions and speeches of some of the foremost politicians in Northern Ireland it has been made very clear that they do not in any way intend to restructure Stormont by integrating any parliamentary institutions.
Northern Ireland is an abnormal place. The problem of young offenders in Northern Ireland is not exactly as one would find it in Finchley, though we have been told by the Prime Minister that Ulster
1580
is as British as Finchley. The problem is entirely different. It has been a crying shame over the years that young people have been so used by paramilitary organisations on both sides of the religious and political divide, particularly on the Catholic-Nationalist side. Young unemployed people have been totally used and exploited by the sinister forces of the paramilitary organisations.
Yet this morning I listened to Radio 4 and to the great news about St. Louisa's School on the Falls Road, with its very eminent headmistress, Sister Genevieve. It is the greatest school of its denomination and size anywhere in the United Kingdom with over 2,500 places. It has been nominated for an award for the good services that it has carried on doing in the heart of one of the most troubled areas of Northern Ireland. I believe that indicates that all is not lost and that there are sincere and dedicated people, even in the most trouble-torn parts of Northern Ireland, ensuring that the pupils whom they have under their control do not become involved in acts of terrorism or vandalism and so become the subject for debates in another place and in this House as well.
I believe that this House is rather remote from some of the deprived areas, particularly of North and West Belfast. It is particularly in the urban areas of Belfast where there are the real problems of juvenile delinquency, vandalism and acts of terrorism. Outside Belfast I am very happy to say that the problem is minimal compared to what it is in North and West Belfast. I believe that the Government have taken into account the unique circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland. Certainly I do not believe that they have acted in any way from a political bias in their approach to this order. Juvenile delinquency and vandalism is not the sole purview of one section of the community because it occurs in all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the request made by the elected representatives that when legislation is being introduced to further deal with the problems of juveniles, prison sentences, prison welfare and attempts at the rehabilitation of these young people, it will be done by way of a Bill so that all the elected representatives will be able to take part and to contribute from their experience in the constituencies that they represent. That is a reasonable request that was made by the elected representatives and it should be listened to by the Government.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the close scrutiny, great care and attention that he has given to these two orders. As your Lordships will see by a cursory and preliminary examination, they cover a very broad spectrum of the treatment of offenders and a particular aspect of Northern Ireland which, sadly, is very prevalent and very necessary. The questions and points put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, show that as always he has considered every aspect; and we are grateful for his scrutiny, and on this occasion his advice on these facets.

1581
As an opening reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, may I say that we see both orders as guidelines to the courts. There is a very subtle distinction between the guidelines or the advice—if one may call it that—which is given in England and Wales and that which is given in Northern Ireland. In essence, they provide the same information; it is just a slight question of how this information is presented.
But in general, and especially regarding the subject of the two orders which we are discussing this evening, your Lordships will be aware that it is entirely and essentially for the courts to decide on the disposal and treatment which is best suited to each and every offender taking all factors into account, including any previous history of offences. Among other things, the treatment of offenders order will extend the range of non-custodial options available to the courts, and that covers a large amount of the ground that was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his opening remarks. We hope to reduce the number of persons, particularly young offenders, who have been mentioned tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Fitt, who receive a custodial sentence. We want to see exactly what both noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition Benches want to see. I do not think there is any difference between us. We want to present the courts, who are the final and the best arbiters, with an up-dated and additional range of options.
I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we intend to discuss with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor the issue of giving guidelines to the courts to advise them of the changes in their powers, together with the options that we have looked at this evening. We want to discuss the purpose of those options and the changes in the courts' powers. I hope that that covers the main and opening thrust of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Lord made one or two specific points and he particularly mentioned the population in prison, either on remand or in custody, who are young adults between the ages of 16 and 21. We agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the prison population, including young adults, expressed as a percentage of the overall population is higher than in many European countries. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will certainly be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will concede, this is due to the fact that a very high proportion of the prison population has been sentenced for scheduled or terrorist type offences which, of necessity, attract fairly long sentences. But we can look at the figures to see whether there are lessons to be learnt and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we shall do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of community service for the young unemployed, especially if they are classified as young offenders. We do not have statistics available, but certainly we shall look into this question to see whether we can obtain any. I undertake that, if we can find any statitistics within the near future, we
1582
shall certainly let the noble Lord have them. However, we may need to have another conversation either in your Lordships' House or elsewhere before we find any helpful statistics. It may take longer than one or two months, but as soon as we have any statistics, we shall let the noble Lord have sight of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also wanted to look at the monitoring of the new measures that we propose in the main order. Once again we shall be gathering statistics and advice from the courts all around Northern Ireland. We shall monitor the effect of our new measures, and I have no doubt that we shall have a further opportunity of discussing the results with the noble Lord. But it is a little too early for me to say when we shall have any helpful information.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised one further question about attendance centres, and he asked whether we have plans for any additional attendance centres in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord so rightly said, there is only one centre currently operating and that is located in Belfast. Interestingly enough, there are a small number of young offenders involved. Further centres have not been considered viable outside the Belfast area, but, in the light of representations following publication of the order which is before us this evening, officials of the relevant departments are again examining the scope of further attendance centres.
I understand that in the past year only nine training school orders were made in respect of offenders in the entire north-west of the Province. They were in Londonderry. But if I say the north-west of the Province the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will understand. It is beyond the "travel to work", but this is necessarily the "travel to attend" area around Belfast. So if only nine cases have arisen in the past year, this is something that we shall look at, and officials will be undertaking further research.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also paid a glowing tribute which I wish to reiterate—though your Lordships will not wish me to extend my remarks unnecessarily—and gave his thanks, in which we join, for the support of the voluntary sector for all the young persons who, for one reason or another, find themselves within range of the courts or the attendance centres in the categories that we have been discussing this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for whose contribution we were very grateful, referred to piecemeal legislation. Certainly we shall take note of what was said in the debate in the other place; and if there is anything that we can glean from that, or if there are any lessons that we can learn for the future, we shall certainly take them up. I want to stress once again to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that we want to give the courts powers and options which may help in the treatment, the sentence and the continual care of young offenders.
In conclusion, I should say that I too had my ear tuned to the radio this morning and heard about Sister Genevieve from St. Louisa's comprehensive school in West Belfast. I heard it said in ringing

1583
tones what she had done over many years. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, with his local knowledge of the area gave the sister an accolade and I humbly wish to add my own accolade to her. I say that because from my own personal experience she is a prime example of the good news and the marvellous dedication which all of us know exists in Northern Ireland, certainly as regards looking after her young girls and young pupils at the school. It also shows that there is a huge talent available which will assist in relation to the rehabilitation and counselling of young persons who offend.
Having said that, I wish to thank the two noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and I commend the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1989
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order, on which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised several matters. Therefore, I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to make any further comments thereon. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should just like to say that we on this side of the House are pleased to support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: 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 7.42 to 8.5 p.m.]

Electricity Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 175B:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Provisions supplementary to section 34.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may give a direction requiring any person authorised by a licence to transmit electricity to give to the Secretary of State, after consultation with specified persons, any information or advice which the Secretary of State may reasonably require for purposes connected with the exercise of his functions under section 34 above.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction requiring any person authorised by a licence to transmit electricity to operate his transmission system, at any time when a direction under section 34(3) above is in force, either in a specified manner or with a view to achieving specified objectives.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above "specified" means specified by or under the Secretary of State's direction; and a person authorised by a licence to transmit electricity shall give effect to any direction given to him under subsection (2) above notwithstanding any other duty imposed on him by or under this Part.
1584
(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes or fails to comply with a direction of the Secretary of State under section 34 above or this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on idictment, to a fine.

(5) No proceedings shall be instituted in England and Wales in respect of an offence under this section except by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(6) Paragraphs 1 to 4, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 to the Energy Act 1976 (administration of Act and other matters) shall have effect as if—

(a) section 34 above were contained in that Act;

(b) the powers of paragraph 1 were exercisable for any purpose connected with securing compliance with a direction under that section;

(c) information obtained by virtue of that paragraph could lawfully be disclosed to any person by whom anything falls to be specified under such a direction; and

(d) the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(c) of that paragraph included power to direct that information and forecasts be furnished to any such person.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Consent required for construction etc.of generating stations]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 29, line 22, leave out from ("megawatts") to ("and") in line 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 177 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 29, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (2) above shall have effect as if for the permitted capacity mentioned in paragraph (a) there were substituted such other capacity as may be specified in the order.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 29, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: We are now in Clause 35 which deals with consents required in the construction of generating stations. In general the clause does not disturb us too much, but there is the usual nasty subsection (3) which allows the Secretary of State to direct, at his own discretion, that the general provision for authorisation by the Secretary of State shall not apply to whatever he feels that it should not apply to. It is, again, a rather odd insertion into the Bill as drafted, because if we are to have subsection (3) in Clause 35, why do we have Clause 35 at all? Why not merely have a clause saying that the Secretary of State can authorise whatever he likes, whenever he likes, on whatever terms he likes?
If we are to pass legislation in Committee and in this place, we must have some assurance from the Government, who are promoting the legislation, that the powers proposed in subsection (3) are to be used in some manner that we can understand. They should not be blanket powers.
Members of the Committee will be aware that on many previous occasions on other Bills I have complained that the Government are arrogating to themselves powers on a number of matters without further reference to Parliament, simply enabling provisions which allow the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes. So in moving my amendment I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who will reply, will tell us exactly how this will operate. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should perhaps explain to the noble Lord at the outset that any type of power station development exempted from the need for the Secretary of State's consent by regulations made under this subsection will still be subject to all the requirements of the planning Acts. The subsection which the amendment seeks to delete will merely give a flexibility which the Government consider to be necessary. Developments will take place at an operational power station in connection with generation which it may be more appropriate to deal with under normal planning procedures instead of under this clause.
One example of the sort of operational change the Government have in mind is a change in the arrangements for depositing ash from a coal-fired power station. Depositing ash is an integral part of the generation process at such a station and will be covered by this clause. However, where this is an entirely separate development from any other development at the power station, I believe that Members of the Committee would accept that it may be both more appropriate, and simpler to deal with it under normal planning procedures. The power to exempt such a development will enable that to happen.
I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is saying about government legislation; it is not the first time I have heard him say it. But I hope that in the light of this explanation—and I could give him other examples if he wished me to do so—he will understand why this subsection is included in the clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that there may be certain applications for the construction of generating stations which should be dealt with otherwise than within the ambit of the clause. In that case, why does not the noble Lord say so? What he has said has no validity whatsoever in the courts. What the courts will do is to interpret what Parliament meant when it passed this statute.
The noble Lord and I have had a nice conversation about what the legislation is meant to mean. With great respect, I understand the point which the noble Lord is trying to make, but it has no validity because ministerial statements in this House or in another place have no validity in the courts. What might happen is that the Secretary of State might go widely beyond what the noble Lord has said. Future Secretaries of State, we know not who, are not bound by what the noble Lord has said today. I wonder whether the drafting could be made rather tighter
1586
and reflect in rather more specific terms the position of the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has expounded to us.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In answer to the noble Lord, of course I am prepared to look at the drafting. The fact remains that subsection (3) of the clause must stand. However, if the drafting can be tightened to give expression to the kind of example I have given, I shall certainly examine it. I cannot give any commitment on it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that he understands the point I am making; as he rightly says it is a point which I have made on many occasions. If Parliament is to make a statute then that statute must be clear. Parliament and people outside must understand what it all means and what are the criteria by which the statute will be judged and which will apply in the courts.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for looking at it again, I understand that it is something which governments write into statutes more or less on an ad hoc basis. If the noble Lord is prepared, as he said, to look at it again, I am grateful. If, in looking at it again, he decides that he will not change it or come forward with any modification of the clause, I should also be grateful if perhaps he would write to me before the Report stage so that I can decide whether I wish to pursue the argument on Report.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I can give that assurance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 180A and 180B not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Consents under sections 35 and 36]:
[Amendments Nos. 180C to 180F not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 102, line 16, leave out ("Regulations under this paragraph may") and insert ("The Secretary of State may by regulations")
The noble Earl said: The amendment simply seeks to clarify the drafting of subparagraph (3) of paragraph 1 of Schecule 8. As Members of the Committee will know, Schedule 8 relates to consents granted by the Secretary of State under Clause 35 (consents required for the construction etc of generating stations) and Clause 36 (consents required for overhead lines). The amendment makes clear that it is the Secretary of State who may make regulations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 8. The Bill as drafted does not make this clear, hence the amendment before the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am a little unclear about why the amendment is necessary, in spite of the noble Earl's explanation. It seems that the only person who can make regulations under the paragraphs is the Secretary of State. That seems to be self-evident. Can anybody else under the Bill as drafted make regulations?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, the director can.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl says that the director can make regulations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 8, rather than the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Dundee: No, not quite. I am not implying that it would be a good idea that the director should do so. But, when the noble Lord asks or implies that there is no ambiguity, I suggest that the amendment is in the interests of clarity. That is why we specify here that it should be the Secretary of State, since elsewhere in the Bill, as we all know, we very often argue, or we have to decide whether it is more fitting for the responsibilities to be more those of the Secretary of State or the director.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. It seems to me that there is no ambiguity at all. However, if the Government feel that there is ambiguity, then so be it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 181A and 181B not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Consent required for overhead lines]:
[Amendments Nos. 181C, 182 and 182ZA not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): I must state that, if Amendment No. 182ZB is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 182A to 187A.
Schedule 9 [Preservation of amenity and fisheries]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 182ZB:
Page 106, line 9, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert—
("Conservation and amenity: England and Wales
1.—(1) In formulating or considering any relevant proposals, each of the following, namely, any licence holder, any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, the Director and the Secretary of State, shall have duties to—

(a) further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there;

(b) further the protection of buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest; and

(c) promote energy conservation.

(2) In seeking to achieve the duties in 1(1) above those named shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features buildings or objects, as described in (1)(a) and (b) above.
(3) In this paragraph "relevant proposals"—

(a) in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, means any proposals programme or series of proposals;

(i) for the construction, extension, or operation of a generating station;
(ii) for the installation (whether above or below ground) of an electric line; or
1588
(iii) for the execution of any other works for or in connection with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity;

(b) in relation to the Director, means any proposals, programme or series of proposals which arise as a result of his general duties to promote the generation and supply of electricity;

(c) in relation to the Secretary of State, means any proposals for which his consent is required under section 35 or 36 of this Act.

(4) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.
Code of Environmental Conservation Practice: England and Wales
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument approve any code of environmental conservation practice issued (whether by the Secretary of State or another person), and referred to in licences authorising the generation or supply of electricity, for the purpose of—

(a) giving guidance to any licence holder, and any person authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph 1 above have effect; and

(b) promoting what appear to him to be desirable practices, by such licence holders and other person authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity, with respect to these matters, including consultation on relevant proposals (as defined in paragraph 1(3) above and further defined in the code) with the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, and may at any time by such an order approve a modification of such a code or withdraw his approval of such a code or modification of such a code or modification.

(2) A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 or give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but the Secretary of State shall take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining how he and the Director should exercise their powers according to the provisions of this Act in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless he has first consulted the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales and such licence holders, other persons authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity and other persons as he considers it appropriate to consult.
(4) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.
Conservation, amenity and fisheries: Scotland
3.—(1) In formulating or considering any relevant proposals or in relation to the duty imposed by paragraph (e) below, in exercising any relevant functions, each of the following, namely, any licence holder, any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, the Director and the Secretary of State, shall have duties to:

(a) further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there;

(b) further the protection of buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest; and

(c) promote energy conservation;

(d) further the use by members of the public, for the purposes of any form of recreation, of any waterway or land used for purposes related to the generation or supply of electricity, by the provision, where appropriate, of facilities for any such form of recreation; and

(e) without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, shall avoid, as far as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters.

(2) In seeking to achieve the duties in 1 (1) above those named shall take into account any effect which the proposals would

1589
have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects, as described in (1)(a) and (b) above.
(3) In this paragraph "relevant proposals" has the same meaning as in paragraph 1(3) above and for the purposes of this paragraph, any such order as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) or that paragraph may be made under this sub-paragraph; "relevant functions" means any powers conferred and any duties imposed by or under this Act.
(4) This paragraph and paragraphs 4 and 5 below extend to Scotland only.
Code of Environmental Conservation Practice: Scotland
4.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument approve any code of environmental conservation practice issued (whether by the Secretary of State or another person), and referred to in licences authorising the generation or supply of electricity, for the purpose of:

(a) giving guidance to any licence holder, and any person authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph 3 above have effect; and

(b) promoting what appear to him to be desirable practices, by such licence holders and other persons authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity, with respect to these matters, including consultation on relevant proposals (as defined in paragraph 1(3) above and further defined in the code) with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, and the Fisheries Committee as defined in paragraph 5 below) and may at any time by such an order approve a modification of such a code or withdraw his approval of such a code or modification of such a code or modification.

(2) A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 or give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but the Secretary of State shall take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining how he and the Director should exercise their powers according to the provisions of this Act in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this paragraph unless he has first consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Fisheries Committee as defined in paragraph 5 below and such licence holders, other persons authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity and others persons as he considers it appropriate to consult.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stems directly from the debate that we had on amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton on 16th May on electricity and the environment. On that occasion, while objecting to the amendment that we were then discussing, my noble friend the Minister took the opportunity to announce a number of measures designed to improve environmental protection in this Bill and in the wider consultative procedures for electricity installations. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in welcoming these proposals, and I look forward to seeing some of them as amendments to the Bill on Report.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that these proposals do not address the issues of principle that my noble friend Lord Renton and I raised on that occasion. I argued then, and I argue now, that it is in the interest of the industry itself, as well as of the public at large, to have a stricter and more effective environmental framework within which to plan and conduct its operations. I therefore believe that the Bill is still inadequate in its treatment of environmental issues. The purpose of my
1590
amendment today is to explore the Government's thinking on how this situation can be improved.
I must apologise for what is a very long amendment. It is a new version of Schedule 9, and it seemed to be the easiest way of ensuring that the various points I wished to address could be properly integrated. If the Government consider they have better suggestions, I shall be only too pleased to discuss them. This amendment has the support of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and English Heritage.
The amendment has four aims. First, it replaces the duty to have regard to the environment with a duty to further conservation. That, in my view, is vital. However, pioneering the words "have regard to the environment" were in 1957, they are not adequate for the late 1980s. I am afraid there has been too strong a tendency to ignore them. The words "having regard to" do not force the industry to do anything at all. The environmental issues which we must now deal with, and which we understand so much better than we did in 1957, cannot be disregarded. They are too serious to be disregarded.
I appreciate that the Minister may feel that the words "to further conservation" may not be as appropriate for this industry as they are for, say, the water industry, where they already apply. I accept that it is extremely difficult to landscape a power station away completely; it will always stick out like a sore thumb. However, I believe the words "to further conservation" convey the need for the environment to be given considerably more weight than is done now when proposals are being formulated and considered. I remain convinced that these words, or something very similar, must be inserted into the Bill.
I shall give the Committee an example of how a stronger environmental duty would bring benefits. The undergrounding of low voltage lines in sensitive landscapes has been referred to more than once in debates in the Chamber. In 1987 to 1988, 10·38 billion pounds worth of electricity was sold. That generated a profit of £155 million. I am told that was not an especially good year. One quarter of 1 per cent. of sales—that is to say, £25 million—would be enough to underground 500 miles of low voltage lines each year. Yet this is not happening, except on a very small scale with boards like Yorkshire. It is evident to me that we need a stronger environmental duty than we have now to encourage the power supply companies to embark on a programme of this kind. After all, the power supply companies are well aware that the cost of good environmental practice such as undergrounding is tax allowable. That is a very practical incentive.
The second aim of the amendment includes a duty to promote energy conservation on the part of the Secretary of State, the director, all licence holders and the public supply companies. This duty already exists, in a form, in Clause 3(3) of the Bill. However, in my view, it is vital that energy conservation is seen as an integral part of the environmental duties which the Bill introduces. There are many opportunities for making progress in this field—

1591
examples include the introduction of energy efficient light bulbs, fridges, freezers, television sets, washing machines and home insulation—if only we can encourage consumers to take them.
Energy conservation is the single most beneficial means of reducing environmental impacts. I feel that the Bill as drafted does not go far enough in emphasising its importance. This part of my amendment, while wholly consistent with the rest of the Bill, would make that emphasis. It would ensure that energy conservation occupies the priority it deserves within the industry's environmental obligations in future.
The third aim of the amendment extends the scope of Schedule 9 by applying it to proposals, programmes or series of proposals rather than simply to individual proposals as they come forward. If we look at the 1957 duty, we see that it applied to the CEGB's general programme, as well as to individual proposals, providing the Secretary of State with an opportunity to influence the programme as a whole on environmental grounds. Because of the different structure of the industry now being proposed, that is no longer possible. I readily accept that the wording of the amendment may not be perfect, but its purpose is to try to reinstate the opportunity for this overall view. Such a duty would probably sit more happily in Clause 3 of the Bill. However, this amendment compensates for the omission of any reference to the environment in Clause 3.
The fourth aim of the amendment is to provide a statutory code of practice for the electricity supply industry. I have seen and studied the voluntary code which was published on 16th May by the three successor companies to the CEGB. I warmly welcome that. As that voluntary code has been produced, why should we not go one stage further and insert a code of practice, ideally one that is approved and enforceable by the Secretary of State, in the Bill itself? Codes of practice are not uncommon: for instance they exist in the water industry. Inserting one in this Bill would reassure those who wonder whether the longer term successors to the CEGB will adopt such a positive attitude as the managers of the three new companies. A code would also ensure that good practice on the ground and in running and operating electricity installations can be positively promoted.
My amendment also picks up a point of detail in relation to Scotland, which appears to be an unfortunate casualty of the proposed legislation. Currently, there is a duty to provide public access to land and water associated with electricity generation under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. This is proposed for repeal without a reinstating clause in Schedule 9. I hope that can be rectified as it appears to me simply to be an anomaly.
I hope the Committee, and the Minister, will view this amendment sympathetically. I want to listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say before considering whether I shall have to return to the issue on Report. Therefore, I hope for a positive reply from the Minister. In closing, I wish to emphasise the key points. I agree with the Minister that there is a wide range of environmental legislation which has
1592
an impact on the electricity industry. However, in my view, this is still not sufficient to deliver the benefits that we seek. We have a duty, having signed the European Commission's fourth action programme on the environment in 1987, to promote the integration of the environment into all areas of policy, specifically including energy policy.
Finally, it is not sufficient to expect to achieve integration by a duty to have regard to the environment. We need a stronger statement of our commitment to the environment adequately to equip the industry for the late 20th century. The interest of the Prime Minister in the environment, especially on issues directly related to electricity generation and supply, has attracted attention throughout the world. I welcome that. However, the Government will have a difficult public relations problem if they cannot deliver in their own domestic legislation tangible evidence that they have taken the challenge of dealing with this problem seriously. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for moving this long amendment. I have only two points to make. The first is to declare again my interest as president of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. I am sorry that the noble Lord left out the fact that the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales also supported the amendment, alongside its sister body, the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
The second point is perhaps a more serious one. In his introduction the noble Lord did not seem to emphasise sufficiently the fact that the 1957 Electricity Act took a strategic view of the environment which in this Bill seems to us to be lost. I hope very much that the Government will look sympathetically at that point. I cannot speak for Scotland; I can only speak for Wales and possibly, with permission, for England.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I understand the purpose of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Norrie has moved. The bodies which he has named, and at least one other which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has named, and perhaps others which have not been in touch with me, have expressed their great concern as to whether the terms of the Bill do enough to protect the environment in future. This is not a question of whether one is for or against privatisation, the main purpose of the Bill; it is simply a question of whether in changing the legislation one is doing enough to protect the environment or whether more is needed.
It struck me when the Bill was first published that it did not contain the kind of code of practice which appears in the Water Bill. The Water Bill is concerned only with privatisation in England and Wales. I say that as a Scot. It does not affect the water industry in Scotland, but it has a code of practice. The amendment seeks to bring in codes of practice, as described by my noble friend Lord Norrie. As my noble friend said, it looks as though Scottish legislation has been weakened and something which in the past has helped to protect

1593
the environment in Scotland where the electricity industry is concerned, has not been fully reinforced in the Bill.
I hope that whichever of my noble friends on the Front Bench replies will be able to give an assurance. I can vouch for the fact that the interested bodies are very much concerned. They must have been in touch with the Government; they have been in touch with some of us about the matter. Unless there is an assurance that the Bill in its present form will do as much, and perhaps more that may be needed in the future, to protect the environment some of us will be very worried about its terms.
Baroness Hooper: I do not wish to pre-empt further discussion on this important amendment but I think that it may be helpful to the Committee if I speak at this stage.
As my noble friend said in introducing the amendment, we have already had substantial discussions on this issue. In the second discussion I indicated concessions and amendments to be made by the Government, and those have been generally welcomed. In the previous debate I also endeavoured to draw a distinction between the water industry and the electricity supply industry in order to show that the main environmental effect of electricity generation relates to the pollution of our atmosphere. In that context we have the 15 Acts of Parliament and the 14 European Community directives to which I referred. Indeed, we are led to understand that a "green" Bill is in the pipeline for the next Session which will also affect the electricity supply industry.
Unlike water, which is all around us, electricity does not occur naturally in a readily usable form. It has to be generated and then transmitted around the country on a continuous basis to those who need it. This task falls to the electricity supply industry which has to construct and maintain the necessary power stations and transmission lines.
It is difficult in that context to reconcile the construction and operation of industrial sites like power stations—which are necessary additions to the environment—with the suggestion in the amendment of my noble friend that there should be a duty to further the conservation of natural beauty. Any industrial installation is likely to intrude on the environment to a lesser or greater degree. Nevertheless, the electricity industry does its best to landscape or screen its installations where possible. The CEGB has also established nature trails, field centres and facilities for bird watching at those sites where suitable opportunities exist and where there are no safety considerations. However, I recognise that there may be ways in which we can ensure the continuation of those good practices.
So far as concerns the wording of Schedule 9 to the Bill, my noble friend Lord Norrie said that there was ample evidence that the present words "have regard to the environment" did not carry weight and authority. I question that. As I said previously, we are not starting from the position that the electricity industry has neglected the environment. The CEGB has taken worthwhile steps to minimise the impact
1594
of power stations on the environment and to create offsetting benefits. Area boards have also played their part by lessening the visual impact of electricity lines in areas where that has been particularly important. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the present amenity provision in the 1957 Electricity Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has rightly said was strategic, has been disregarded.
In addition, in their joint statement of environmental policy, National Power, Power Gen and the National Grid Company all recognise the need to provide a safe and secure electricity supply while minimising the adverse effects of this obligation. To that end the companies have said that they will take the steps which were enumerated. Those intentions reveal a considerable sympathy with the environment. Again, I recognise the anxiety that those voluntary statements may not be kept up to date in some way. However, the statement in itself is important and reassuring.
The inclusion in the Electricity Bill of the amenity obligation in Schedule 9 has to be seen against that background. The obligation is something to which neither British Gas nor British Coal (the Opencast Executive apart) nor private sector industries such as the chemical industry are subject, even though their operations can have substantial effects on the environment.
However, I shall be prepared to consider further the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Norrie, and the other amendments to Schedule 9 put down by other noble Lords. In saying that, it is incumbent on me to make clear that I do not expect to be able to meet all the amendments which have been canvassed. Nevertheless, I shall consider them all carefully and I believe that we can meet some of the important concerns. We shall certainly continue our discussions with interested groups and individuals.
Before leaving this subject I should like to address in particular the subject of energy conservation. Clause 3 of the Bill, as has been said, already places a duty on the Secretary of State and the director to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons licensed to supply electricity. It also places a duty on them to promote the efficient use of the electricity supplied. In addition, private electricity suppliers will be required by their licence to provide guidance to their customers on the efficient use of electricity and to revise that information as necessary. Those requirements will make a valuable contribution to the dissemination of energy efficiency advice for the benefit of both consumers and, ultimately, the nation. However, again on this subject, we are still in the process of considering further the amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this House.
We recognise that the challenge here is to shape legislation that will both regulate sensibly and assist industry to prosper. With the assurance that I shall look at the matter again carefully and hope to meet some of the concerns expressed in those amendments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness. However, before the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps she could be a little more precise about which areas she is prepared to look at and accept and which areas she is not prepared to look at and accept. It is a curious arrangement where a government Minister—I understand the problem—says that there may be some points that the Government can accept and other points that the Government will not accept and must look at. After all, we are in Committee and have only Report stage and Third Reading to come. The Bill is in its final stages of going through Parliament.
I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would clarify those points, at least for my purposes. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, does not wish any clarification. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could help us by telling us on which areas the Government are flexible and on which areas they are not flexible. We assume from what she has said that Schedule 9 will be redrafted along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and that some of my amendments to Schedule 9 which come afterwards will be taken into account sympathetically. If that is the case, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will be happy. If it is not the case, I think that we should know.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will clarify one point for me. In supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie—as I do very fully—my noble friend said that she was quite sure that the electricity industry would take note of all that was said. But people change; governments change; the electricity board changes. Therefore, unless there is something more specific along the lines of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie, such as a code of practice or a provision in the Bill, I am not quite sure how my noble friend can give us the assurance that she has given us. I should be grateful for some help. I shall not elaborate any further as my noble friend Lord Norrie has spoken so extremely fully and well that there is no need to add anything further. But I should be grateful for some help from my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I wish to refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. As the Minister has mentioned, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, includes a reference to promoting energy conservation. Surely the Committee is entitled to know the Government's attitude to Amendment No. 62 which relates to energy conservation and was accepted by the House. The Government have simply said that they are considering the matter, but are we not entitled to know what the Government intend to do about it in order to decide what our attitude should be towards Lord Nome's amendment?
Lord Campbell of Croy: Before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, I should say that I do not think that the Government need at this stage comment on an amendment passed a few days ago.
1596
Presumably, they are considering that now, so I do not expect them to comment. However, I should like to say briefly that it was with pleasure that I heard my noble friend say that she is prepared to consider all the points that are being made in the amendments to the schedule. No doubt the question of energy efficiency will already have started to be considered. It is not just as a matter of courtesy therefore that I thank my noble friend; I think that she has been absolutely right to say that she will go away and consider all those points.
Baroness Hooper: Taking the energy conservation point, perhaps I should say that, when the amendment was passed, it was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to be flawed and possibly to need some drafting alterations. It is in that context that discussions are going on, but obviously we are looking at it in the overall picture. This is an area where we must meet the arguments that have been put forward with a package of solutions. Indeed, we started the process with the package that was introduced previously. However, I thought that, in making my initial response, I had indicated the two areas where we had the possibility of negotiating.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. I just want to make the point (I do not intend any discourtesy) that we have a convention in this House—as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, announced at the Report stage of the Companies Bill—that an amendment which has been decided in Committee is not overturned on Report. I am sure that that is a useful convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said. I hope that, in quite rightly considering the decision of the Committee on energy efficiency, the Government are not seeking to go back on that decision at the Report stage in this House.
Baroness Hooper: No, we are endeavouring to make the decision effective which, because of the flaw to which I referred, it is not at the moment.
I believe that I indicated two areas where we felt that we could ensure that we could do something to mitigate the effects. While we cannot claim to further the enhancement and conservation of the natural beauty of the environment in the process of electricity generation, perhaps we can be firmer in terms of mitigating the effects. I also indicated that we recognise the welcome that has been given to the voluntary codes of practice which have been produced by the various designated electricity supply companies, or shadow companies as they are now. But there may be some way in which we can ensure that it becomes a permanent requirement upon them.
I hesitate to venture north of the border, so perhaps I could ask my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden to respond to the queries raised in that respect.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I wish to respond briefly to the obvious interests north of the border

1597
expressed by my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Campbell of Croy.
I should like to say a few words about paragraph 3(1)(d) of the amendment which applies only to Scotland. The intention behind the paragraph is, as I understand it, to place a duty on hydro-electric generators to allow recreational access to their reservoirs and land. The bulk of Britain's hydro-power stations are located in the north of Scotland and no similar requirement has been suggested for the industry south of the border, where hydro-power represents only a tiny fraction of the overall generating capacity.
Many of the north board's hydro schemes are in the remotest areas of Scotland. Noble Lords will know that, unlike in England and Wales, where in populous areas use is made of water supply reservoirs for recreation, Scotland is fortunate in having large numbers or rivers, lochs and sea lochs which are more easily used for recreation purposes than the more remote lochs used for generating electricity. There is not the same call, therefore, on the hydro-board's facilities as there is on the water industry in England and Wales. Only a fraction of the populace reside near the schemes or have access to them. Often the water storage point is some distance away from the generating site. The flow and level of water stored for the generation of electricity can be subject to sudden and major change as sluice gates are opened and closed to meet peak electricity demands. The water can often be unsafe for recreational activities such as swimming, boating, windsurfing etc. It would not be reasonable to expect the hydro-board to abide by a duty to grant access to the water and at the same time ensure the safety of the public using facilities which may be some distance from the generating plant.
There are also difficulties over ownership. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy will know, the hydro-board does not own all the lochs used for the purposes of recreation; over many, they have only flooding rights. In addition, even where lochs are owned it is likely that the surrounding land will be in the ownership of other proprietors and access to the loch may be over their land. In these cases the successor company may have neither the power nor the authority to implement any guidance or practice set by the Secretary of State under the items referred to in paragraph 3 of the schedule because of the impact on other adjacent proprietors.
I understand the intention behind this part of the amendment but consider it to be unnecessary and undesirable in this form. The Scottish boards already do much to encourage recreational use of their facilities where this is feasible. The hydro board maintains visitors' centres and exhibitions at Cruachan and Pitlochry hydro-power stations which jointly attract almost 200,000 visitors a year. The board's annual angling contest has been running for over 15 years and involves angling clubs from all over the north of Scotland. Both Scottish boards, together with the CEGB and British Coal, are collaborating in a project to treat the waters of Loch Fleet in Galloway, South-West Scotland, which are known to have been devoid of fish life for over 25
1598
years. The project is so far proving highly successful and fish stocks have been reintroduced into the loch. The south board is also contributing to the recreational activities in East Lothian by using coal ash deposits from its Cockenzie power station to reclaim and landscape land to allow scope for outdoor sports and recreation.
These examples provide evidence of the willingness of the electricity industry in Scotland to provide recreational access to their property where this is appropriate. But, as I have explained, in granting access the boards have to take account of public safety and the wishes of owners of adjacent land. This is not an easy matter. It is one upon which I think the Committee will wish to reflect before it considers whether it would be appropriate to place obligations on the Scottish companies in the way paragraph 3(1)(d) of the amendment seeks to do.
I noted very carefully what my noble friend Lord Norrie said about the repeal of certain sections of the Countryside Act. Powers to enable the Scottish boards to grant access to the public for recreational purposes currently exist in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Since those apply to public boards, it would be inappropriate to continue them in their present form after privatisation. However, in view of the discussion tonight, I wish, like my noble friend Lady Hooper, to take note of what has been said and to consider the various actions that could be taken. With the commitment to look closely at this matter before Report stage, I hope that my noble friend feels that I have gone as far as I possibly can towards meeting his desire.
Lord Norrie: I am extremely grateful and pleased to hear what the Minister has said in response to my amendment. I trust that in agreeing to consider all the points which I raised, one can hope for some progress on all of them before the Report stage of the Bill. Certainly I shall be delighted to discuss any points of detail with the Minister in the meantime.
These debates on electricity and the environment have, I believe, focused attention on one of the most important issues arising from this Bill. I hope that when noble Lords come to look again at the matter there will be some amendments placed before the House which will provide the environment with the full and effective protection that it deserves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 182A:
Page 106, line 12, leave out ("the desirability of").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 182B, 182C, 182D, 182E, 184A, 185A, 185B and 187A. I shall not move these amendments formally because I understand from what the noble Baroness said that she is prepared to consider them. If that is so, perhaps she would be kind enough to indicate accordingly.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 182A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 182B to 183A not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 106, line 23, leave out from ("megawatts") to ("or") in line 24.
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184A not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 106, line 30, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect as if for the capacity mentioned in paragraph (a) there were substituted such other capacity as may be specified in the order.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 185A to 186 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 107, line 4, leave out ("(2)(a)(1)") and insert ("2A)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 187A not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 107, line 123, leave out ("on fisheries in Scotland") and insert ("in Scotland—

(a) on fisheries, or

(b) on the stock of fish in any waters,").

The noble Lord said: During the Report stage of this Bill in the other place an amendment was tabled to extend the remit of the Fisheries Committee to include within its function of giving advice and assistance on questions relating to the effect on fisheries in Scotland of hydro-electric generating stations a reference also to the effect on fish farms. In reply (Official Report, Commons; col 633) my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy gave an undertaking to consider introducing a suitable amendment during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber.
During the intervening period we have taken the opportunity to consult the Scottish electricity boards, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Fisheries Committee itself. Having taken their views and received general support, we have decided to bring forward this amendment, which, although not worded exactly as that put forward in another place, gives effect to the intention behind the original amendment and, in fact, follows the wording used in Section 5(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 and paragraph 2(1)(c) of this schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Standards of performance in individual cases]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 188ZA:
Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("may") to ("after") in line 37.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 188ZB and 188A. With the permission of the Committee I should like to raise one general question that arises with regard to this and the following two or three amendments. In this section of the Bill the committee is discussing consumer protection. This clause has the heading "Standards of performance in individual cases". The next clause refers to "Standards of overall performance" and the following clause refers to "levels of performance", although within the clause there is reference to "levels of overall performance".
One of the clarifications that we should like concerns the difference between, as it were, performance in individual cases and what is meant by overall performance. I should like an explanation as to why in Clauses 38 and 39 the word "standards" is used while Clause 40 refers to "levels". I do not understand why the different words are being used. That is general background.
The specific amendment to which I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee is Amendment No. 188ZA, which leaves out from "may" to "after". In considering the question of levels of individual performance we query why we need the consent of the Secretary of State. If ever there was a job for the director, it would seem that this is an example. We do not understand the reference to the Secretary of State in this matter.
The third of these amendments is important. We ought to bear in mind that suppliers of electricity also supply other and related services. We are not quite clear whether the clause as drafted covers all the related matters that the suppliers of electricity undertake. In that case there is no problem. If it does not, our amendment appears appropriate.
I pause with regard to Amendment 188ZB, relating to page 30, line 37. My earlier amendment appears to delete that. Therefore if my first amendment is carried, my second no longer has any meaning. That has only just dawned on me. However, perhaps I may make the point. We know that the electricity suppliers are different people from the public electricity suppliers. It does not seem to us that there is any particular role for the public electricity suppliers. Those are the specific points to which the amendment is directed. If we can have some guidance from the noble Lord who will answer on the general question we shall be obliged. If that is regarded as a little broad-brush, we shall be happy to wait for a fuller answer on another occasion. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out his concerns. As we tackle a new group of clauses it may be helpful if I explain how the clauses fit together and the relevance of each of

1601
them. I hope to pick up the points that the noble Lord made.
We are looking at the new system of guaranteed standards of service which are to be introduced under Clause 38. That clause recognises that for the foreseeable future domestic consumers will continue to obtain their electricity supplies from a single local supplier. It is therefore one of the most important clauses in the Electricity Bill, as it will provide domestic customers with the right to compensation if their local electricity supply company does not meet certain standards of performance.
The Director General of Electricity Supply will be able to make regulations prescribing the standards of performance which he believes the public electricity suppliers should meet in the electricity supply services which they provide to their domestic customers. The regulations will also set the level of compensation which customers will receive if the companies fail to meet those standards. The regulations may also cover questions such as when the public electricity suppliers should inform their domestic customers of their rights and the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to penalise a supplier for events beyond his control; for example, freak weather conditions.
The public electricity supply licences will contain a condition requiring the supply companies to conduct their business in a manner best calculated to achieve the standards set by the director. Before making the regulations, the director will consult both the companies concerned and appropriate representatives of consumers' interests in order to ensure that the standards set and levels of compensation to be paid are realistic and fair.
The director will also be in a position, via the regional structure of the Office of Electricity Regulation, to assess the individual circumstances of the various supply companies and may, if he feels it appropriate, decide that the schemes should take account of regional variations—an important point. Of course, as the Bill makes clear, the director must in any case seek the approval of the Secretary of State before making his regulations.
The provision to pay compensation will not prejudice any other remedy which might be available to the consumer. The director will be able to determine disputes between suppliers and consumers over the payment of compensation or ask a consumers' committee or sub-committee to do so. An order made either by the director or one of the committees in determining such a dispute will be enforceable as though it had been made by a court. This all adds up to an important new package of rights to protect the position of the domestic consumer in the privatised industry. We believe that the scheme will prove to be a very strong incentive for the supply companies to achieve and maintain high standards of performance.
That is background that I hope the noble Lord accepts. I hope that it answers the first of the two main questions that he asked when he moved this amendment. On the first amendment of the noble Lord, subsection (1) as presently drafted requires the
1602
director to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before making the regulations that will establish the guaranteed standards of service and the levels of compensation to be paid to consumers for failure to meet the standards. The noble Lord seemed to indicate that this was more a matter for the director. If I understood him aright, he slightly queried the involvement of the Secretary of State.
I hope he will agree that it is surely right that the director, who will have overall responsibility for the regulation of the electricity industry, should make these regulations. However, under Clause 3 there is also another duty. It is a duty upon the Secretary of State to exercise his functions in a manner that he considers best calculated to protect the consumers' interests. It is entirely appropriate that the regulations relating to the guaranteed standards scheme should be made by the director with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. It is possible that I simply do not understand. I could read this paragraph meaning one of two things. The director may say to the Secretary of State, "I am proposing to make some regulations. Is that all right?", which is what I assumed it meant when it says that he may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make regulations. The Secretary of State may then agree that the director may make some regulations. But the alternative interpretation, which I cannot find in the text but did get from the noble Lord's reply, is that the director says to the Secretary of State, "I shall make these particular regulations. Are these okay?"
I can understand the logic of the latter as part of the Secretary of State's duty. He will say "If you want to make those regulations, in my view the specific regulations do not actually do the job". I can see that the Secretary of State has a locus following what the noble Lord said; but the clause reads simply as if what the director has to do is to make some regulations and ask for permission to do so. That to my naive way of reading it is clearly what the clause says. If the noble Lord's statement is what the clause means, I fully accept it. But it does not read as if what he said is what the clause provides.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes. What I said, I hope, is certainly meant to be a fair reflection of what the clause means in practice. The noble Lord is quite right in his interpretation of what I said meaning what the clause is intended to convey. Whether the noble Lord feels that the clause does not quite convey it in that way I do not think is entirely right. I do not believe that there is anything unusual in this. As the noble Lord said, the burden is essentially on the fact that the director "may" as opposed to any other construction of that. So his interpretation is correct.
Lord Peston: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he knows, there is no one less expert in interpreting legislation in this Chamber than I am. Clearly what he says makes sense and is what the clause ought to say. If he will let me know in due course that his lawyers and draftsmen state clearly without doubt and without further ado that that is what the clause means, then there is nothing between us on that matter.
Lord Trafford: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the whole clause from subsection (1) where "The Director may", down to subsection (6), where it states:
"an order … above shall be enforceable in England and Wales, as if it were a judgement of the county court",
which means that the director's regulations will be given the power of a county court decision. I think it would, subject to correction from my noble friend, be most unlikely that such regulations could be agreed normally speaking in legislation or by Parliament in this Bill or any other unless they were subject to the Secretary of State and therefore indirectly to parliamentary control.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: A matter arises in connection with Clause 38(3), (4), (5), and (6) and the interrelation of these subsections. The problem arose on the last Committee day in relation to Clause 23 with reference to the arbiter. The clauses do not lie happily together so far as the consumer if concerned. If we take it in stages, Clause 38(3) states:
"If a public electricity supplier fails to meet a prescribed standard, he shall make to any person who is affected by the failure and is of a prescibed description such compensation as may be determined by or under the regulations."
That is then followed by Clause 38(4):
"The making of compensation under this section in respect of any failure by a public electricity supplier to meet a prescribed standard shall not prejudice any other remedy which may be available in respect of the act or omission which constituted that failure."
That would suggest to me—perhaps wrongly—that the Government are accepting that the compensation under the regulations will have its limitations. There will be prescribed degrees of compensation for failure. If that does not cover all the loss that the consumer has suffered—for example, economic loss by failure of the supply and so on—then theoretically he can go to court for the balance. Clearly what he has received under Clause 38(3) will be taken into account and no doubt deducted.
But—herein lies the problem—we then find in Clause 38(5):
"Any dispute arising under this section or regulations"—
I ask the Committee to note the word "regulation"—
"made under it"—
may be referred to the arbiter by either party. What happens if the supplier, having had a dispute with the consumer, takes the case to the arbiter before the consumer has had a chance to exercise his other rights under Clause 38(4)? If the arbiter makes a decision—and there is no right given to the consumer to refuse to go to the arbiter—if it is referred to the arbiter by the supplier that seems to be the end of the matter.
We then come to Clause 38(6), which provides that an order under subsection (5), which is an order by the arbiter:
"shall be final… in Scotland, as if it were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff".
That suggests that if a consumer, not being satisfied but having had the decision of the arbiter taken against him, wishes to raise the matter in court he
1604
would be met by a plea of res judicata, the matter already having been adjudicated upon by the arbiter.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, offered to look again at Clause 23 in relation to the last amendment. Will he also take into account the fact that the same criticism applies to Clause 38(3) to (6)?
Lord Trafford: Before the noble Lord sits down I should like to put a point to him. This situation is not altogether different from the custom in most public sector authorities. It is similar to an internal complaints procedure that does not preclude a citizen's rights before the courts at common law or under any other statute. It refers only to the decision made by the director under these specific circumstances. Therefore, it does not rule out the right of the citizen to appeal to a court on other grounds relative to compensation.
Perhaps I may give an analogy. If my supply fails perhaps I have a charge via the regulations. However, if because of the failure of my supply I fall down the stairs and break my legs I may have a different type of claim which could be brought before the courts and that would be my ordinary right. That is my interpretation of the clause. As a result of these particular regulations and the situation I suggested to my noble friend that it should be the Secretary of State—
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I believe that the question was directed towards me. If it was not I shall add nothing further—
Lord Glenarthur: It may be helpful if I intervene before Members become confused about who was asking whom and what. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trafford. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, set out the correct understanding of the clause.
Under the circumstances which the noble Lord envisages the former limitation does not apply to compensation. A person can receive compensation and then go to the court for full compensation, which was precisely what my noble friend Lord Trafford was saying. In relation to Clause 23, I note the relevance and connection which the noble Lord makes in terms of what my noble friend Lord Sanderson has agreed to reconsider. We shall make sure when reconsidering that both amendments make sense.
As regards the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, I have already mentioned that Clause 38 enables the director to establish by regulations standards which public electricity suppliers will be required to meet in the provision of electricity supply services to domestic customers and the compensation payable if the standards are not met. The director is required to consult with public electricity suppliers and persons and bodies representative of the consumer before making the regulations. The noble Lord's amendment would remove the requirement from the director to consult public electricity suppliers.
I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that public electricity suppliers should not be able to influence the setting of the standards to the extent that they are set at too low a level. However, the public

1605
electricity suppliers will be required to meet the standards. I suggest that it is only right that they should be able to put forward their views to the director before the regulations are made. That would enable them to comment on questions of practicality and so forth but the decision will remain that of the director. The company's views will be balanced by those of the persons appearing to the director to be representative of those likely to be affected and with whom he must also consult.
The noble Lord's third amendment would widen the scope of standards which the director will set under the clause to include services other than electricity supply services. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. The point about the guaranteed standards scheme is that it should apply to the activities of public electricity suppliers which they carry out as licence holders. I am referring to those activities which relate to the supply of electricity to consumers—such as meter reading, efficient maintenance of the system and so forth—for which the domestic customer has little choice of supply. As there will be little competition for the provision of those services in the foreseeable future at any rate, it is therefore only right that the public electricity suppliers should be required to meet certain standards and that the customer should be compensated for any failure to meet them.
In a way, this is also the other side of price control. It would be quite wrong if the supply companies could evade the effects of price control by lowering the standards of their service. However, it would not be appropriate for the standards to be extended to suppliers of other activities such as appliance sales and repairs. Those activities are carried out in competition with other high street appliance retailers and electrical contractors, as we all know. There is very active competition in the appliance supply market. The area boards certainly do not have a dominant position in that market and it would be inequitable if the electricity suppliers were required to meet certain standards in those areas which did not apply to their competitors.
The noble Lord asked me a question about the difference between standards and levels. My understanding is that standards would be set by the director and that "level" means how well the company does against those standards. That is what that is intended to convey and that is the purpose of the words as they appear in the Bill.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I believe that I now understand some parts of this clause. I take his point on the Secretary of State and I do not need to press that matter.
I am concerned about public electricity suppliers, as he will be well aware. Yesterday's debate on brewing was a very good example of the power of producers influencing decisions. I am always aware that the consumer does not do anywhere near as well in this. I worry about that as regards the director general. However, I well understand the noble Lord's answer even though I should not go that way.
On the final part of my amendment, I see the logic of his answer. However, I believe that he should bear
1606
in mind that in practice, although the individual household will be protected by more general consumer legislation and, as the noble Lord said, by competition, it may nonetheless be considered very odd that a household can complain to the director about the supply of electricity as we define it in this Bill but if that same body comes to install an appliance the householder cannot complain about that. I take the noble Lord's point. I do not say that it is illogical but I believe that it may lead to certain difficulties between the consumer and the director in due course.
I asked one other question because I was hoping not to move my later amendment. I asked about the definition of "overall" as well as about the word "level". Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me on that point.
Lord Glenarthur: I most certainly will.
Lord Peston: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188ZB and 188A not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 188AA.
Page 30, line 42, leave out ("to domestic premises").
The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be convenient if Amendment No. 188B, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, are discussed at the same time as my amendment. However, I shall concentrate on the amendment in my name.
Clause 38 provides for guaranteed standards of performance to consumers in domestic premises only. I follow what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said when he was speaking on the background, about the emphasis in this clause as regards domestic consumers. However, there appears to be nothing to provide the same for other consumers; for example, small businesses. This amendment requires the director to determine and identify the categories of customer to whom guaranteed standards would be applicable. Should there not be provision for more than the domestic consumer on this matter?
That is especially relevant for Scotland and has been raised by the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland District. Therefore I look forward to an explanation by the Government of the present drafting and I hope that other categories may benefit from what my noble friend says.
My proposal is particularly relevant to rural areas. It was no surprise to me that the matter was raised by the Consultative Council for the North of Scotland. In the two previous debates which I have initiated in Committee I have drawn attention to the problems caused by distance, the cost of sea transport and other special questions arising in remote areas, particularly in the northern mainland of Scotland and the Islands. This amendment would provide some flexibility which is likely to be most helpful to small businesses. The Government in their responses to those last two debates initiated by me have shown that they have considered the situation

1607
in remote areas seriously and carefully, and for that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sanderson. I trust that again today the Government will recognise the purpose of my remarks and indicate how they visualise these matters being handled when the Bill has become law. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his explanation of what lies behind his amendment. I have to say at the outset that we do not entirely favour the drafting of the amendment but perhaps I can put that in context by also saying that there may be practical difficulties in simply extending the schemes to cover all tariff customers. At present there are some 11 different tariffs operated by the industry for non-domestic customers, each of which varies from area board to area board. Furthermore, at present many large industrial consumers take all or part of their supplies on tariff. Therefore, it might be difficult, if not impractical, to distinguish in the Bill between different tariffs on any logical or consistent basis, particularly as the scales of tariffs change frequently and the situation may become even more complex after privatisation. With those difficulties in mind, our view is that a definition of the target group for the guaranteed standard scheme in terms of tariffs would be more or less impossible.
Having said that, I certainly recognise that there may be a case for widening the scheme to encompass, for example, small business customers and I should like to consider that point further with a view to returning at a later stage in the Bill. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with that response.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am extremely pleased with that reply and I am grateful to my noble friend for having seen the point and saying that he will consider it. As regards the wording of the amendment, I simply accepted the drafting which came to me and I do not know how much expertise there was in it.
I note that Amendment No. 188B, to which my noble friend also replied, inserts the words "tariff customers", which are not in my amendment. However, I think I have made it clear that the intention in my amendment is that the director should have the discretion to decide what categories of customer should be included as regards standards of performance. However, having heard the positive reply from my noble friend and if no one else wishes to add anything, I am glad to ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188B to 191 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Standards of overall performance]:
[Amendment No. 191A not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:
[Amendments Nos. 191B to 195 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Functions with respect to competition]:
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Fixing of maximum charges for reselling electricity]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 34, line 17, at end insert ("and without prejudice to the generality thereof, may be recovered by that person by deduction from any rent or other sum due or accruing due to the person reselling electricity, and to the extent of sum so deducted, such deduction shall be valid discharge of the rent or other sum due.").
The noble Lord said: I do not want to detain the Committee for very long with this amendment. It may seem to be a minor matter and we may be discussing relatively small sums when someone is overcharged. Nonetheless, to the person concerned it can be a very serious issue. Even though the sums appear small to us, they may not be so to the person concerned. In addition, where someone believes and is pretty certain that he has been overcharged there will also be a great sense of grievance that a wrong has been done.
Essentially this amendment is to bias the position slightly in favour of the tenant who may be in a weak position in any event. The amendment in effect says "I am paying my rent on a regular basis and there is no problem about that. I have been paying my bills as regards electricity which is here being resupplied or resold. In my view I am being overcharged. I have argued the matter with you, or the landlord or whoever is dealing with the matter. I now propose, as my opening shot, to deduct the excess from the electricity bill as you have submitted it to me".
As I understand it, some legislation dealing with landlord and tenant allows this kind of action to take place. The most obvious example is Section 57 of the Rent Act 1977, where one is actually discussing the overcharging of rent. I am not fully conversant with the Water Bill, but I understand that there is something along these lines in that Bill. Therefore what we are proposing does not represent any major new point of principle; it offers a little protection to the particular kind of consumer who most needs it and who is most likely to be exploited. That is the motivation behind the amendment.
What we are concerned about in pressing the amendment are the rights of a rather weak buyer of electricity. Whatever the merits of the specific wording that we have chosen, if the Government do not like it we feel it is incumbent on them to produce their own amendment which does the same job. As I say, it is a very minor matter when we are discussing the kind of billion pound question of nuclear power generation. In terms of principle and the likely people involved, I do not believe it is a minor matter at all. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: This clause is yet another example of our stated aim that our proposals will benefit the consumer. It preserves the protection given to those who do not buy their electricity

1609
directly from a public or private electricity supplier—for example, tenants who buy their electricity from their landlord—by giving the director the power to set a maximum price at which that electricity may be resold to such consumers.
In recognition that such consumers are not in a position to select their supplier, the scope of the clause is such that the maximum resale price will apply to all electricity supplies—not just to electricity supplied initially by a public electricity supplier—in order that all persons to whom electricity may be resold may have the same degree of protection.
The directors' powers will enable him to fix different maximum resale prices for different cases or circumstances as he considers necessary or right. The director will, in addition, be required to publish any prices he fixes so as to ensure adequate publicity for them, thus ensuring both that the supplier is aware of what he is entitled to charge, and that the consumer is aware of what he may be required to pay. Should a consumer be overcharged, the clause makes clear his right to recover the excess from the supplier.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I appreciate that the noble Lord is anxious through his amendment that redress for a tenant if he has been overcharged should be as simple as possible. As is clear from subsection (4) of Clause 42, we share the view that where overcharging takes place then there should be a right to recover that excess payment. I have to say, however, that I do not believe this amendment would simplify the process. On the other hand, I feel that it would add complications.
For example, if a person believed he was being overcharged and could not agree action to rectify this with the person selling him the electricity, he would have the right to seek a judgment in the courts for the recovery of moneys due to him. In most cases it is likely that this recovery would be achievable through the relatively simple procedures of the small claims court. Under the terms of the amendment, anyone thinking he was overcharged could unilaterally seek to recover the excess by refusing to pay his rent. Such action might lead to further action by the landlord where he did not agree that there was an overcharge, possibly through the courts for recovery of rent, or in the form of an eviction notice. That is clearly an undesirable situation.
We believe that the approach set out in the clause gives full protection to consumers who obtain their electricity on a resale basis. As I have demonstrated, the amendment—rather than improving on the provision for the customer—could make matters more difficult by endangering his tenancy.
In view of those remarks, I wonder whether the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: Ithank the noble Earl for his answer. I am bound to say that I do not find it satisfactory, because I do not think he has the image of the sort of tenant I have in mind. The sort of tenant I have in mind is not a person who remotely could manage
1610
to go to the small claims court or anything of that sort at all.
I am a great admirer of the small claims court and I should like to see our legal system extended much more at that level of operation. I am talking about tenants who are very much on the margin of obtaining housing anyway who, whatever our arguments about the extent of poverty in our society, will typically be rather poor and not enormously capable tenants, and who are open to exploitation.
I am not suggesting for one moment that my solution is a very easy solution to the problem. What I am saying is that it does not seem to me that the Bill offers any solution. Listening to the noble Earl, while I always respect what he has to say, I am afraid that I do not find what he has said convincing. I feel that the Government in this kind of case, as a minimum—this is, after all, a major Bill and this is an opportunity that the Government must take—should at least say that they will think about this a little more. Again, I accept that without prejudice, but I am not happy with the answer I have been given.
The Earl of Dundee:I would just remind the noble Lord that the sort of tenant he refers to could go to the consumers' committee for help and advice.
Lord Peston: Again, I suppose that the noble Earl's experience and my experience of society are slightly different. These are people who do not easily go to anything. That is the problem. The problem is that they need rather more direct help. I know there may be differences of philosophy between this Government and us these days, and we are regarded as slightly old-fashioned in our view that we wish to get a bit of protection for people. But the noble Earl says he or I might do things if we were in that position, because we are capable people. I have a different image in mind of people who are in more considerable difficulty. But I do not seem to get anywhere in persuading the noble Earl even to say that he will think about it. I will give him one last chance to say "I will think about it" and then I will give up.
The Earl of Dundee: I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making and I shall certainly think about it. I shall take it away and have another look at it. As the noble Lord will appreciate, it may not be satisfactory to put anything further in the Bill; but I shall certainly take it away.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Earl taking it away with a view to coming back on Report with something more preferable to us?
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for enabling me to make clear to him the manner in which I am taking it away. I am taking it away without commitment.
Lord Peston: That at least is something; indeed, in view of the answers which the noble Earl was giving, I did not think that he was taking the matter away with commitment. I am grateful to my noble

1611
friend for trying to help in this respect and the noble Earl has at least taken the matter somewhat on board, which is the most I can expect in the circumstances. Accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Investigation of enforcement matters]:
[Amendments Nos. 202 to 202B not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Investigation of certain other matters]:
[Amendment No. 202C not moved.]
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 202D:
Page 35, line 21, at end insert—
("(4A) Where on investigation under subsection (1) above the committee consider that the person authorised by licence to supply electricity should take certain steps (which may include the payment of compensation) it shall be the duty of the committee to make such a recommendation to the person licensed to supply electricity.").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen and focus the role of the consumers' committees in investigating and resolving those complaints where the director general has no power to intervene; to give statutory recognition to the fact that in some cases compensation will be appropriate; and to bring the Electricity Bill into line with the Water Bill. Clause 27(1)(d) of the Water Bill states:
"It shall be the duty of a customer service committee … where the Committee considers it appropriate to do so in connection with any such complaint . …to make representations on behalf of the complainant to the company in question".
I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly appreciate the noble Viscount's motives for putting forward this amendment. However, I must say to him that, despite his concerns about the Water Bill, I do not think that what he proposes is necessary. It seems to me that the provisions which are already written into the Bill ensure that an investigation by a consumers' committee under Clause 44 can in fact lead to positive action.
The purpose of Clause 44 is to enable the committees to investigate complaints from consumers about non-enforcement matters. Subsection (4) ensures that the findings of the committee after any such investigation will be referred back to the director for the exercise of any of his relevant functions. Such action on the part of the director might in an extreme case result in the modification of the relevant licence.
Therefore I hope that the noble Viscount will see that his proposed amendment is unnecessary, although perhaps I can reassure him further by pointing out that the committees already have a general duty under Clause 49 to make representations to the suppliers on any matter which appears to the committee to affect the interests of customers, or potential customers, of the supplier.
1612
There is nothing, therefore, that I can see to prevent the committees from making repesentations on the basis of investigations which they have carried out. I think that the comparison with the Water Bill is taken account of by Clause 49, to which I have referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord referred to the possibility of the consumers' committees taking "positive action", to use his exact words. But, what positive action has he in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: Far be it from me to indicate what any committee may decide under any given set of circumstances. However, under such circumstances as these I envisage that the first course of action that it might take under that subsection would be to refer the matter back. No doubt the committee would try to resolve the point at issue.
Viscount Hanworth: I am reassured by what the noble Lord has said. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 45 [General functions]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 35, line 36, leave out from ("on") to end of line 39.
The noble Lord said: The three amendments that I have tabled to the clause have one vein in common: a distaste for the clause and a deep belief that if the Government were seriously to amend the clause it could not result in anything less elegant than it is at present.
First, subsection (1)(b) reads:
"to collect information with respect to those activities, and the persons by whom they are carried on, with a view to his becoming aware of, and ascertaining the circumstances relating to, matters with respect to which any of his functions under this Part are exercisable".
I ask whichever of my noble friends is to reply to this brief debate to consider how those words would assist anyone who became involved in a dispute under the Bill or how ultimately they might assist a court whose duty it was to resolve such a dispute. I cannot help feeling that they would be nothing other than a hindrance. It is an act of charity on my part to offer the guidance to my noble friends that they should omit those words.
The second amendment that I have tabled has no connection with the first except the general distaste for the clause. Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State may give general directions indicating—

(a) considerations to which the Director should have particular regard in determining the order of priority in which matters are to be brought under review in performing his duty under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above".

Let me take the opportunity to express once again my profound sympathy for Professor Littlechild, a man of great courage and an obvious sense of duty who has undertaken a heavy task. I do not believe that he will be in any way strengthened in the discharge of that task by being given guidance as to the precise order in which he should tackle the items of his duty. I commend that second point to my noble friends.
Before I become too eloquent on the subject let me turn quickly to the third amendment and say that the notion of having two directors involved in the same area of what might pleasingly be called human activities is not one which I find friendly or welcome in any way. Subsection (3) states:
"It shall be the duty of the Director, where either he considers it expedient or he is requested by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Fair Trading to do so, to give information, advice and assistance to the Secretary of State or that Director with respect to any matter in respect of which any function of the Director under this Part is exercisable".
Would it not be nice and friendly to leave out all reference to the Director General of Fair Trading and leave the matter to the Director General of Electricity Supply who will have enough trouble on his hands without having to argue little points of difference as to who does what in which particular dispute? I have an awful fear that it will not command the total agreement which it deserves, but I believe that my noble friends on the Front Bench should be turning round to me now with gratitude shining from their eyes, appreciating the wisdom of the guidance that they are now receiving. I cannot believe that they would not, at the minimum, wish to take this clause away and erase from the public memory those horrible words which they have put into the Bill, even if they do not accept my amendments which I now modestly commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I shall do my best. I should like to clarify for the record that we are talking to Amendments Nos. 204, 206, 208 and 209. Perhaps I dare start by reminding Members of the Committee that the formulation in the Bill is well precedented in the Gas Act, the Telecommunications Act and indeed the Fair Trading Act.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I really hate to interrupt my noble friend but I had hoped that by this time she and others of her noble friends might have learnt that the repetition of hideous error is in no way a defence; nor is it even a palliation.
Baroness Hooper: I regret that the repetition of certain questions unfortunately calls for a rather similar response in some respects. Perhaps I may start with amendment No. 204, which is the provision in subsection (1)(b) which worries my noble friend. This provision is intended to ensure that the director may, so far as it appears to him practicable, collect information which is relevant and necessary to enable him to carry out his functions as specified under Part I of the Bill. It is not our intention to give the director powers which are unnecessarily intrusive or draconian, nor is it
1614
intended that the director should unnecessarily fish for information or waste his time and consumers' money in acquiring information that he does not need to do his job. For this reason, the power of the director to collect information under this subsection is not a blanket power. Rather it is designed to enable the director to become aware of, and to ascertain, circumstances relating to matters in respect of which he may wish to exercise his functions under this part of the Bill.
The provision in Clause 45(2) is simply intended to allow the Secretary of State to bring general matters to the director's attention where he feels it is appropriate. The Secretary of State may, for example, wish the director to review whether there are any significant barriers preventing new generators competing effectively with existing generators. The director will be free at all times to take account of other relevant considerations and it will be up to him in the end, after taking account of the general directions given by the Secretary of State, to make his own decisions on the matters on which he should concentrate.
If I may say so, during consideration of Clause 3 earlier in our Committee proceedings my noble friend put forward Amendment No. 64. As he may remember, that would have made the director explicitly accountable to the Secretary of State. I agreed, without commitment, on that occasion to look at his amendment again. But I hope he will acknowledge now that subsection (2) goes some way towards meeting his concerns and the arguments that he put forward at that stage.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 208 and 209. The director in the course of his work will be uniquely placed to accumulate valuable expertise and knowledge about the electricity industry. It is therefore only sensible that he should give information, advice and assistance to the Director General of Fair Trading as well as to the Secretary of State where the Director General of Fair Trading requests him to do so in respect of the electricity industry. They will be working together and we have taken care not only here but in other parts of the Bill to ensure that their duties intermesh. I trust that with those explanations my noble friend will feel somewhat reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In no way do I feel reassured. Perhaps I may take Members of the Committee back very briefly to the amendment to which my noble friend referred. So far as I recollect, what I then suggested was that the director general should be answerable to the Secretary of State. That did not mean—it was the last thing that I wished to call down upon his unoffending head—a stream of directions from the Secretary of State indicating the order of priority in which matters were to be brought under review in the performance of his duty.
I sometimes feel that Ministers and their departments, in setting out the arguments with which amendments should be rebutted, omit to read or reread the words which Parliament or this Chamber

1615
seek to amend. I shall withdraw the amendment, but without any note of satisfaction as regards my request being agreed to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205 to 209 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Publication of information and advice]:
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 212 not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
9.56 p.m.
Clause 47 [Keeping of register]:
[Amendments Nos. 212A to 212C not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Annual and other reports]:
[Amendment No. 212D not moved.]
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 37, line 25, at end insert ("; and

(e) include a detailed survey of initiatives undertaken by the Director to further environmental protection and enhancement.").

The noble Viscount said: I think it will be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 214. Under the Bill, the director is required to make an annual report to the Secretary of State covering the four specified matters. These amendments add environmental protection and enhancement, energy conservation and the efficient use of electricity and initiatives to alleviate fuel poverty to the list on which the director is required to report. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I trust that the noble Viscount is speaking to Amendments Nos. 213, 214 and 215. I believe that we should not be over-specific about what the director should, or should not, include in his annual report. The annual report is the director's report on his activities in the year; and it should be for him to decide what to include in it, subject always to the provisions of Clause 48(2). As has been said on several occasions, the office of the director will be a key post. The individual with the many rare talents to fulfil it we believe we have found in the person of Professor Littlechild. We should not, therefore, be over-prescriptive in what he should, or should not, include in his annual report.
Clause 48(2) provides that every annual report shall include a general survey of developments in respect of matters falling within the scope of the director's functions. In carrying out these functions, the director will, of course, have to have regard to the general duties set out in Clause 3.
The noble Viscount also suggests in his amendment that the director's report should be specific about his initiatives on the environment. On this point, I beg to differ. The impact of the electricity supply on the environment is, as we have already discussed, controlled by a large range of legislation and directives. We believe it would be unwise to place an additional duty on the director to do what is already being done elsewhere by authorities with specific expertise in environmental protection. I trust this will reassure the noble Viscount, and that he will therefore be able to withdraw the amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I must say that I find the response of the noble Baroness extremely disappointing and rather surprising in view of what she has just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The noble
1618
Lord, Lord Peyton, complained that the director was being subjected to a great many highly prescriptive instructions from the Secretary of State. Now from these Benches we have asked simply that in his annual report the director should include specific reference to one of the items to which we, and I think all Members of the Committee, attach the greatest importance—the effect on the environment of the work that has been done. It appears that it does not matter being highly prescriptive on a matter of pedantic detail in the previous amendment, but on this, a matter of the highest importance, we are not allowed to be prescriptive. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again.
Viscount Hanworth: I am not very happy with the reply of the noble Baroness. In the Bill it is stated that the director's report shall include the information set out in four subsections. I agree that those items are rather different from my suggestion. Nevertheless, if we attach importance to the environment—and we have attached immense importance to the environment every day that we have sat in this Committee—I should have thought that the noble Baroness could at least have included these vital issues as a specific requirement in the director's report. I ask her, without any commitment, to consider the matter again because the reply that she gave was not very satisfactory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to reinforce what the noble Viscount has said. Perhaps on this occasion the noble Baroness could be generous and consider whether or not this very modest requirement—it is quite important but modest—should be included in the Bill. I know that she has in her brief, "resist". Could she not take the initiative and say that she will consider it and bring the matter back?
Baroness Hooper: We have tried to indicate that throughout the Bill there is a series of provisions which create checks and balances to cover the activities of the director and others concerned. Perhaps it is the late hour, but I succumb to the persuasion of noble Lords opposite and I shall look at the matter again, without commitment.
Viscount Hanworth: I thank the Minister very much and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214 to 215B not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [General duty to advise Director etc.]:
[Amendment No. 215C not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 38, line 8, after ("area") insert ("and to hold not less than four public meetings each year in different pails of the authorised area of each public electricity supplier allocated to the committee.").
The noble Lord said: Here we continue to play the rather elaborate game that we have been playing on this Bill. We have here the consumer committees

1619
which we all agree are of enormous importance. Clause 49 tells us the duties of the consumer committees. It also tells us what the consumer committees will actually do.
Curiously, one of the things that the consumer committees are not asked to do is to hold public meetings. Indeed, they are not told at all how to forge links with consumers and how to represent the views of consumers. I find that very surprising. I should have thought that the Government would want there to be meetings because that presents not merely an opportunity to represent the views of consumers, but also a way of reassuring consumers. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Why I said that we are resuming an elaborate game is, to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because if one complains about the detail one is told that the detail is required, but if one puts forward detail which one would like included one is told that that interferes with the freedom of the body concerned. In other words, to every proposal there is a counter proposal, but there is no consistency of principle throughout the Bill which says that it will all be done one way and we shall not interfere or it will be done another way and we shall be prescriptive. As I said, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put that in the clearest possible way.
If the noble Baroness wishes to debate the merits of public meetings, that is fine; I should like to hear from her. However, I hope that I shall not receive from whoever replies a statement to the effect that we do not want to tell the committees how to do their job. We have not hesitated to tell all sorts of other people how to do their jobs in the Bill, so there is no issue of principle here. The point is the enormous value of having public meetings of that kind and, perhaps I should add, the enormous value to the privatised industry. This is not an anti-industry point; it would be extremely helpful to the suppliers.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly recognise that it was made perfectly clear at an earlier stage in the Bill that we would look at the whole question of public meetings. I understand the concerns that lie behind the views of the noble Lord on the matter, so I hope that what I say will be taken in the context of that review.
I do not think that it would be necessary to require consumers' committees to behave in quite the way that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes. Our view is that, given the wide variation in geography, consumer base and other such matters which exist between the areas that will be served by the new supply companies, the consumers' committees should have the freedom to decide how best to carry out their local representative functions in the light of local conditions. For example, one approach might be to set up local representative sub-committees, as is provided for by Schedule 2 to the Bill. An alternative approach would be that suggested by others in the past. In some instances the committees might feel it appropriate to adopt both, but I believe that it should be up to individual
1620
consumers' committees to decide upon such matters. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we are already looking at the whole question of public meetings. I hope that he will understand the force of my argument and agree not to press the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He partly gave me the answer that I did not want; namely, that we must leave matters to the consumers' committees. I am anxious to give them as much freedom as they can possibly manage, but I think that this is a case where they should not have freedom. Since I understood the noble Lord to say that the Government were thinking through the whole area of what the committees should be set up to do, it would be foolish on my part to press him while the Government are still thinking about the matter. He has at least heard what I have said. I wait to hear the Government's thinking as that seems to me to be the most appropriate thing to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Periodical and other reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 216A to 217 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 38, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish briefly to ask my noble friend to what extent those committees matter. Are they of any importance or are they mere exercises in sedation aimed at quietening down customers who have become irritated? If, as I anticipate, the Government's answer is that the committees are of some importance, then I believe that the reports that they are obliged to make in response to a request from the director general or reports which they feel that they should make and wish to make—both of them—should be published. Otherwise they will feel that their views, when they come to express them, will just be quietly put on one side and buried without anybody ever having a chance to see them and appreciate whether or not they have merit.
I hope that, even if my noble friends will not accept this amendment tonight, nevertheless they may perhaps think that, just in order to convince people that they believe that these committees are of real importance, these amendments or something along these lines ought to find a place in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to my noble friend. I think it is important to see the director and the consumers' committees in context. They each have a set of powers and duties aimed at the common goal of protecting the interests of consumers. They will be working together with that aim in mind. Our proposals will in practice give consumers' committees greater authority than any of the existing representative bodies, and the Electricity Consumers Council has very much welcomed this as a major step forward. It is a brand new venture. Because the

1621
activities of consumers' committees and the director will be co-ordinated in this way, it makes sense also for the publication of the reports that we are discussing to be by the director. Such reports will have the double authority of the committee and the director and they will have greater force.
Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend that there is nothing sinister at all in confining the power to publish to the director. Let me give my noble friend one or two examples. Under Clause 50(4) the director, in publishing any report under this section, has to have regard to the need for excluding so far as is practicable any matter which might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of a person or body. To enable him to do so, the director will need an element of discretion in the publication of a report under Clause 50. Secondly, the director may have asked a number of consumers' committees to report to him on a complex technical matter. Once consumers' committees have reported individually, the director may then wish to consider whether it would be more helpful to consumers to consolidate the information and findings into an integrated report. The present wording of the clause gives him the necessary discretion to do so. My noble friend's amendment would take away that discretion. I hope that in the light of those remarks he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With great respect, the noble Earl has not answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. What the noble Lord seeks, and we would support, is an obligation on the director to publish. He has discretion; it is given in the latter part of the section:
"in such manner as he considers appropriate".
The noble Lord is not trying to change that provision. That is his first point. The noble Earl's second point seemed to be wholly otiose to the argument. The noble Lord is seeking to achieve, and I support him, that the director shall have an obligation to make sure that the public get to know what the consumer committees are saying in their reports.
The Earl of Dundee: With respect, I think that the noble Lord may not perhaps have managed to look at the total arrangement in this context; namely, that the director will make sure that the public are properly informed. It is simply that he does not have to publish everything that is given to him. He can use his discretion and judgment. I think that, should we adopt my noble friend's amendment, that discretion would disappear.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He paraphrased me very fairly even though he did not completely understand the burden of my remarks. I must say to my noble friend that his opening remarks shocked me considerably because I believed that he was on the verge of accepting my amendment. That would of course come as a very great surprise to me as it would have done to anybody sitting behind me because such a thing happens only very rarely. I should not readily have recovered from such a shock. However, the subsequent remarks of my noble friend made me
1622
feel more at home because his meaning became covered with a soapy camouflage that made it quite clear that he was going to reject my amendment on the usual ground that it would not help, or some remark of that kind.
The Government's view of the importance of the consumers' committee that they are setting up will be assessed not according to the status that it has enjoyed in the past but the regard in which its work will be held in the future. If a director general is going to be free to call for a report, and then does not like it, he may say, "I shall have nothing to do with it. I shall bury it". I believe that is wrong.
However, at this hour of the night I realise that it will be no good to press my noble friends to desert the habits of a corporate lifetime. They cannot do so. However, I hope that they may break with precedence so far as to have a genuine look at the point enshrined in the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Compensation for chairmen and officers of abolished Councils]:
[Amendments Nos. 219A to 219C not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Continuity of employment of officers of abolished Councils]:
[Amendments Nos. 219D and 219E not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [General restrictions on disclosure of information]:
[Amendment No. 219F not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 40, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) the Director General of Water Supply;").
The noble Earl said: Clause 54 provides disclosure gateways for certain information which has been obtained under Part I of the Bill, so that such information may be made available to specified public or statutory authorities. These amendments create an additional disclosure gateway for information to be disclosed to the Director General of Water Supply who will be appointed when the Water Bill is enacted.
With the approval of Members of the Committee, I move this purely technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220A not moved.]
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 40, line 36, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(gg) for the purpose of facilitating the conduct of collective bargaining between appropriate representatives of employees and any particular business.").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are grouped together. Amendment No. 221 is a probing amendment to secure an assurance that the clause as at present drafted does not prevent the normal flows of information associated with effective operation of industrial relations and consultation procedures. Amendment No. 222 likewise is to obtain an assurance that the clause as presently drafted cannot be used to prevent the flow of information on health and safety matters necessary if the machinery for promoting the health and safety of persons employed to be established under Clause 54(3)(d) is to be effective. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Although I sought not to move this amendment because it is a late hour of the night and it is an extremely important amendment, I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Viscount for having moved it. It is of course the property of the Committee while it is on the Table. It goes without saying that we certainly support the rights of employees and the continuity of the collective bargaining arrangements. As I said, this is a very late hour to debate such an important subject. I do not wish to go on about it because we have to finish at a certain time. I should not like the noble Baroness to feel that we on these Benches do not feel strongly about this issue.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for their succinct introduction of the amendment. I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the assurance that he seeks. We believe that, apart from these duties to secure for employees in the industry the establishment of health and safety machinery which is relevant to the director's duty, the director will otherwise play no part in the conduct of industrial relations to the privatised industry, whether it be collective bargaining or any form of negotiating machinery. I take the opportunity to make that point and I trust that it is helpful.
Viscount Hanworth: I thank the Minister very much, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 41, line 5, at end insert—
("(mm) the Water Act 1989;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Making of false statements etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 42, line 29, at end insert—
("(1A) Any person who seeks to obtain entry to any premises by falsely pretending to be—

(a) an employee of a public electricity supplier;

(b) an electrical inspector; or

(c) a meter examiner,

shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Baroness said: There can be few activities more contemptible than gaining entry into another person's home by deceitful means. The elderly and the handicapped in particular are most vulnerable to these confidence tricksters. It is right that they should be appropriately punished. The amendment brings the Bill into line with other recent legislation. I am reasonably confident that it will gain support from all sides of the Chamber and also from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her amendment. It is an important amendment and reflects a great deal of worry on the part of people who innocently or otherwise are subjected to confidence tricks, if I may put it that way. I speak with a certain amount of personal knowledge, because I was the subject of a confidence trick of the kind that the noble Baroness has described, not perpetrated, I am happy to say, by an employee of the London Electricity Board, but by an employee of the Gas Board before it was privatised. He gained entry with a view to reading the meter. Somehow my wife and I were not around and we found certain things missing after he had left. I believe that this is something which the Government ought to accept. The noble Baroness has a point, and I speak with a strong degree of personal feeling about the matter.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be sympathetic towards her noble friend's proposed amendment.
Baroness Hooper: In expressing feelings of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for a most unfortunate experience, I reassure him that we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for bringing forward this amendment which would make it an offence to gain entry in this way. We welcome the protection that such a provision will offer householders. This is wholly in line with the Government's objectives of seeking to ensure the widest possible degree of consumer protection in the Bill. I recommend that the Committee accept it.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 56, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Having supported with great sympathy the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I am somewhat unhappy about Clause 56 as it stands, even as amended. It goes much wider than the amendment of the noble Baroness. The clause states that it is an offence:
"If any person, in giving any information or making any application under or for the purposes of any provision of this Part, or of any regulations made under this Part, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular".
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is aware that in the Scottish courts the word "reckless" has a different meaning from that in the English courts. I return to the Financial Services Act which was discussed in this House. Someone may recklessly and

1625
without paying attention make a statement which affects any provision under this part. The number of provisions under this part is enormous and the director and other people can ask for this, that and the other. If the person has an off day or does not know what he is talking about and is condemned on summary conviction to a fine, that appears to be harsh. I wonder whether that is what the Government have in mind.
In particular I should like to discuss the problem of recklessness in the provision of information because that is where the problem lies. I am prepared to accept the fact that if someone deliberately makes a false statement he should be guilty of an offence. However, he may recklessly make a statement not knowing whether it is right or wrong. The person may be a tenant in a council house and have no idea when saying to the electricity chap, "I think that that is right". For that person to be caught under this clause appears to be a little fierce. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider the wording.
Baroness Hooper: This is an essential and important clause in the Bill and obviously we wish to get it right. Therefore, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I shall look into the definition of "recklessness". I shall write to the noble Lord or come back at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I say on historical evidence from my former noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna that the definition of "reckless" in Scotland—and this is a United Kingdom Bill—is different from that in England and Wales. Perhaps that should be looked into.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Certainly we shall take up the point and look at the definition of "reckless" under Scottish law.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Powers to make regulations]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 43, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: If the amendment had arisen at an earlier hour I should not have been able to resist the temptation to regale Members of the Committee with powerful arguments in order to make it irresistible. However, at this hour of night I have neither the eloquence nor the charm of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Somehow or other she has the key to my noble friend's heart or mind and is able to secure her agreement. I can only envy her.
I content myself with asking my noble friend whether she would be good enough to tell me in one sentence what is the precedent or excuse for these horrible words which I seek to leave out of the Bill. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This is becoming a fairly familiar chorus. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I seem to agree on the matters which we are now discussing. It is the most extraordinary piece of drafting. The Bill states:
"Regulations made under any provision of this Part may provide for anything",
and anybody may do anything he likes without worrying about Parliament. Paragraph (c) continues:
"make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Director considers appropriate".
We really do not need this Bill at all. As a Bill we need Clause 57(3). The rest of the Bill can be scrapped because that subsection gives the power to do anything in any circumstances. This seems to me to be something which, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, says, on another day in another place we should resist very strongly indeed. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is to reply to this amendment. I very much look forward to what he has to say to justify this wholly unconstitutional provision which the Government are trying to write into the Bill.
Lord Bonham-Carter: We must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing this amendment. When one reads subsection (3) and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it is a most extraordinary provision to insert into a Bill of this nature. It is a catch-all provision which can catch anyone for anything. I believe that this Committee would be acting in a guilty fashion if, even at this hour, it is prepared to be so supine as to accept this. This is a monstrous provision. I believe that the noble Baroness will have to put up some very convincing arguments to justify a provision which is so very wide, absolutely unnecessary and, I should have thought, contrary to all precedent.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am afraid that I join the chorus from this Front Bench and I must disappoint my noble friend again. Even at this late hour I shall take a little time to go through this particular provision to try to explain why it is there.
Clause 57 makes general provision concerning the content of regulations made under Part I of the Bill. Regulations will play an important role in the operation of the electricity industry after privatisation. Subordinate legislation arising from this Bill will serve to give effective guidelines and rules on how certain of the Bill's procedures should operate on the ground. Some of these regulations will deal with highly complex or technical subjects. Examples are the electricity supply regulations, which will continue in effect under Clause 29; and regulations on meters, to be made under the provisions of Schedule 7.
Regulations of this sort must be able to make different provision for different cases. Meter regulations must be able to deal properly with credit meters and pre-payment meters: it would be foolish to suppose that one set of requirements as to pattern or construction would be suitable for both these

1627
descriptions of meter. The supply regulations contain different height above ground provisions for different voltages of electric line, and also different provisions according to whether the line is above a road or not. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is essential to allow regulations to contain provisions such as these.
Similarly with paragraph (a) of the subsection, regulation 29 of the supply regulations contains a procedure for the determination of disputes between a supplier and a consumer, over the manner of connecting up the consumer's installation, by a person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State. Any such dispute is likely to be technical in nature, and it is only right that the regulations should allow the Secretary of State to find a person with the right qualifications to resolve the particular dispute. Without a provision like paragraph (a) the regulations would have had to provide for disputes to be determined by the Secretary of State or some other named person, and that in turn could have led to some dispute being determined by a person lacking the proper qualifications to understand and decide it properly.
Paragraph (c) does no more than spell out on the face of the Bill a proposition which might otherwise be regarded as inherent in any power to make subordinate legislation. In that sense, it is positively valuable because it tells the Committee that the powers in Part I of the Bill to make regulations include the power to include these additional provisions in the regulations.
I hope I have demonstrated that subsection (3) is a necessary part of the Bill. Perhaps I may end with three observations which may reassure my noble friend and any noble Lords who are still uneasy about this provision. First, it only applies in relation to regulations made under Part I of the Bill—the electricity supply part of the Bill; secondly, it has nothing to do with any powers to make orders—the authority for the content of any order has to be found in the clause under which the order is made and not in Clause 57; and, thirdly, it does not enable the Government to hide things away from Parliament—regulations which draw some of their authority from Clause 57 will still be subject to scrutiny in the usual way.
I am tempted to speak about precedents but in view of what has been said already tonight I shall resist that temptation.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It was interesting to hear the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, of Clause 57(3), but, with the greatest respect, I may be better informed but I am none the wiser, as someone said on another occasion.
There used to be a prize for gobbledegook, and subsection (3)(a) would be a strong contender for that prize. I wonder whether it is necessary to have all this particularisation in subsection (3) at all. Would it not be neater to have a clause just saying that regulations can be made in relation to anything arising from this part of the Bill, full stop? When one starts restricting the operation of the regulations
1628
one creates problems. It might be better if the noble Lord were to take that subsection away and reconsider the wording because at present it makes incredible reading.
We have heard much about consumer rights and how this Bill is to be easily understood by the electricity consumer, but the ordinary man or woman picking up the Bill in its present form would probably shut it and say that it is not worth reading because it is unintelligible. I seriously suggest that rewording should be considered for Clause 57(3). In the two lines and two words of paragraph (b) the word "different" appears four times. Why is that necessary? Does it add anything to the provisions of the Bill? Could it not be more neatly and succinctly put if the noble Lord were to take it away and reconsider the wording?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before my noble friend decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps I may say that I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in matters legal. It would be churlish of me not to consider whether the wording which I have tried to describe in subsection (3)(a) is correct or incorrect. Of course I give an assurance that I shall ask those who have drawn up this statute to look again at the wording but I have to say that it will be without any commitment. Those who are not involved with the law can be as flippant as they like about terminology but I have to say to the noble Lord that in my view it will be difficult to change. Nevertheless, I certainly take his suggestion on board to see if change can or should be made.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very grateful for the last words of my noble friend and almost moved by them. Perhaps I may put it this way: so great is my admiration and respect for him that my imagination is defeated when I come to attempt to envisage the indignation and the noble rage with which he would have rejected the explanation that he has now offered to me had our positions been reversed and I had offered it to him.
I am a hungry man and I derive what comfort I can from my noble friend's comments as to what these words will not and cannot do. That is at least something. I moved the amendment with very great brevity. I asked my noble friend if he could and would in one sentence tell me what were the precedents for these horrid words. At the very end of his answer to me he became oddly shy and that great shield of precedent that is held up to cover every rubbishy argument that any government ever adduces for nasty legislation was suddenly thrown away—discarded.
I still ask, though I do not want an answer, and I am still wondering whether there is any precedent for these horrid words. I also ask myself how long we shall have to wait before some Minister or other comes to this Committee or another place and produces something equally nasty and refers to this particular subsection of this Bill as a precedent.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before my noble friend sits down, though I find it difficult to convince him

1629
of past legislation being all that helpful as we progress through this Bill, I notice that in Section 64 of the Electricity Act 1947 there is a similar section, so it is precedented.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It is a horrible thought but no excuse!
Lord Williams of Elvel: Has 41 or 42 years made no difference in life?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is quite clear that legislation passed by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been a precedent in this case.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am once again sadly convinced how deeply encrusted in sin governments become. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Concurrent proceedings]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 43, line 19, leave out ("one or more") and insert ("either or both").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 224B, 224C, 224D, 224E and 224F. The Government have decided to make certain changes to Clause 58, dealing with concurrent proceedings, and to Clause 59, dealing with public inquiries. The reasons are to provide greater flexibility in arranging public inquiries into matters which are related to each other, when this is convenient for the parties concerned, and to provide greater clarity.
Amendments Nos. 224C and 224D correct errors in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 58 as introduced. The replacement subsections now provide that proceedings for the secondary matter—for example in the case of a power station, the compulsory purchase order—may be taken concurrently with the proceedings for the primary matter, which is the power station consent, rather than vice versa. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, in moving the amendment and speaking to the group, referred to certain errors in the drafting of the Bill as we have it before us. Did I hear him correctly? What are the errors, and why were they not spotted in another place?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The answer to that is that they probably were spotted in the other place. That is why we have come forward with amendments which we feel are more correct so far as concerns this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 224B, 224C, 224D and 224E:
Page 43, line 20, at end insert ("and").
1630
Page 43, line 23, leave out from ("Scotland)") to end of line 39 and insert—
("(2) The proceedings which—

(a) in the case of a compulsory purchase order, are required by Part II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 to be taken for the purpose of confirming that order;

(b) in the case of an application under paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to this Act, are required by paragraphs 7 to 12 of that Schedule to be taken in relation to that application,

may be taken concurrently (so far as practicable) with the proceedings required by Schedule 8 to this Act to be taken in relation to the application for consent under section 35 of this Act.").
Page 44, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The proceedings which—

(a) in the case of a compulsory purchase order, are required by Part II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 to be taken for the purpose of confirming that order;

(b) in the case of an application under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to this Act, are required by that paragraph to be taken in relation to that application;

(c) in the case of a reference under paragraph 8 of that Schedule, are required by that paragraph to be taken in relation to that reference,

may be taken concurrently (so far as practicable) with the proceedings required by Schedule 8 to this Act to be taken in relation to the application for consent under section 36 of this Act.").
Page 44, line 20, leave out from ("paragraph") to ("under") in line 23 and insert ("8 to be taken in relation to the reference under that paragraph may be taken concurrently (so far as practicable) with the proceedings required by the said paragraph 5 to be taken in relation to the application").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Public inquiries]:
[Amendment No. 224EA not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 224F:
Page 44, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) Where—

(a) an inquiry is to be held under this Part in connection with any matter; and

(b) in the case of some other matter required or authorised (whether by this Part or by any other enactment) to be the subject of an inquiry ("the other inquiry"), it appears to the relevant Minister or Ministers that the matters are so far cognate that they should be considered together,

the relevant Minister or Ministers may direct that the two inquiries be held concurrently or combined as one inquiry.
(4) In subsection (3) above "the relevant Minister or Ministers" means the Secretary of State or, where causing the other inquiry to be held is a function of some other Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State and chat other Minister acting jointly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:
[Amendment No. 224G not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  MARINE RADIONAVIGATION: CONSULTATION EXERCISE
  MARINE RADIONAVIGATION: CONSULTATION EXERCISE
  UNDERGROUND TICKET BARRIERS: AUTOMATIC OPENING
  UNDERGROUND TICKET BARRIERS: AUTOMATIC OPENING
  PARKING AREAS: NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES
  PARKING AREAS: NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES: LIBERALISATION MEASURES
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES: LIBERALISATION MEASURES
  FOOD: LIAISON BETWEEN UK PROMOTIONAL BODIES
  FOOD: LIAISON BETWEEN UK PROMOTIONAL BODIES
  DEER: SLAUGHTER INSPECTION ARRANGEMENTS
  DEER: SLAUGHTER INSPECTION ARRANGEMENTS
  NHS REFORM PROPOSALS: IMPACT ON PATIENTS
  NHS REFORM PROPOSALS: IMPACT ON PATIENTS
  BLIND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS
  BLIND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS
  ROSE THEATRE
  ROSE THEATRE
  CIVIL DISASTERS: REVIEW OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
  CIVIL DISASTERS: REVIEW OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
  HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER: FUNDING OF INQUIRY
  HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER: FUNDING OF INQUIRY