Sitting of 19 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KINGSTON UPON HULL CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Orthopaedic Consultants
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current waiting time for referrals to orthopaedic consultants in South Glamorgan and Wales as a whole.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on drawing pole position for his first Welsh question. However, no figures are available centrally—for South Glamorgan as a whole or for Wales —of the time that patients have to wait for referral to an orthopaedic out-patient clinic. Individual experience varies considerably, with urgent cases being given the priority for treatment that their condition merits.
    Mr. Smith: I recognise that the Minister and many of his colleagues in Wales will not be with us much longer, and I extend my deep sympathy to them, but what does the
    2
    Minister intend to do about my constituent Mrs. Julie Froude, aged 35, who has three young children and suffer from a crippling orthopaedic condition? She has been told that she will have to wait 18 months merely to see a specialist, and wait an indefinite time before she receives medical treatment. That is wholly unacceptable and I ask the Minister to intervene.
    Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details, I will most certainly intervene. He might like to bear in mind the experience of Fulham and that of a predecessor of his who also graced the Opposition Benches for a very brief time.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: On the question of orthopaedic consultants, will the Minister ensure that the two new consultants who are to be appointed by the east Dyfed health authority are based in the new Llanelli hospital and not at the west Wales general hospital in Carmarthen? Is he aware that if they are based in Carmarthen, the new operating facilities at Llanelli will be under-used and the waiting list will not be reduced?
    Mr. Grist: I certainly take very careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. When the Llanelli hospital is finished, which I hope will be later this year, I will consider precisely what the situation should be.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Minister reply to the question? We have had the first question from my new hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). It was on an important matter. Will the Minister talk to the Secretary of State for Wales, who is actually to blame for the result in the Vale of Glamorgan, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who will get the blame for yesterday's disastrous result? The Secretary of State could then raise the matter at this week's Cabinet meeting, get the blame put on the right person's shoulders and ask her to resign because of what is happening to the country and to the Health Service and— —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House wishes the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday, but his question must relate to orthopaedic consultants.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Reverting to the question of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), does the Minister understand that there is great concern and pain throughout Wales due to the length of waiting lists for hospital treatment? Why does he not admit that our people in Wales want the National Health Service White Paper to be withdrawn and that there is massive electoral evidence for that? I remind him that even the north Wales citadel of his party has fallen. He should take note of that.
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the proposals in our White Paper would actually cut waiting times. Of course, everybody accepts that it is a severe problem, but I seem to remember that when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister matters were often rather worse.

    Advisory Body for Higher Education
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, when he last met the Wales Advisory Body for Higher Education and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The Wales Advisory Body was reconstituted as a single-tier body in March. I chaired the first meeting of the reconstituted body on 7 April.
    Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining to the House how the reconstituted body is operating. Will he tell us something about the relationship between the Wales Advisory Body and the sub-committee of the new Universities Funding Council? Surely it is time for us to plan our education in Wales as one.
    Mr. Roberts: First, I am sure that many of us would like to welcome the hon. Gentleman back among us after his arduous campaign. Secondly, in answer to his supplementary question, I assure him that there will be a representative of the Wales Advisory Body on the Universities Funding Council subcommittee relating to Wales. I agree with him—and have always thought—that there should be a close link between local authority higher education and universities.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: In his next meeting with the advisory body, will my hon. Friend suggest that an appropriate subject for study at the higher education level could be why the Welsh nationalist and Liberal parties were beaten yesterday by the newly emerged version of Militant tendency—the Green party—and why the Conservative vote held up much better in Wales than in almost any other part of Great Britain?
    Mr. Roberts: Aristotle said that politics was not a proper subject for study for a young man, but I am sure that, as my hon. Friend suggested, it would be interesting for any study to begin with the fact that the Conservative vote in Wales exceeded the combined votes of Plaid Cymru and the Alliance by 40 per cent.

    A55, Gwynedd
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with discussions with local authorities and others on the impact of the A55 on Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend and I will meet representatives of Gwynedd and the districts within that county. I have already had discussions with Clwyd and the majority of its local authorities. I have been very favourably impressed by the way in which some authorities have planned to secure the enormous potential economic benefits that the new A55 will bring.
    Mr. Wigley: Some of us are a little surprised that there has been no reference to the fact that one person will no longer be travelling along the A55 to Manchester airport to fly out to Europe, but apparently there are no tears among Conservative Members for the lamented lady.
    If the A55 is meant to be the artery which brings economic development to north Wales and especially to Gwynedd, why has there been so much delay in extending it to Holyhead in one direction and Dwyfor in the other, both of which are areas of high unemployment? Will the Minister now seek additional funds to speed up improvements to those connecting roads to ensure that any economic benefit reaches the areas that most need it?
    Mr. Roberts: From having studied "Roads in Wales 1989" the hon. Gentleman will know that we have co-operated with the counties, and they with us, and that we have devised a strategic road network for Wales, which includes Welsh Office and county roads. We have received a report from consultants about improvements along the A5 in Anglesey and that report is currently under consideration.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend will be concerned that some of his constituents and of mine who are anxious to ride their bicycles westwards along the A55 are not allowed under the present arrangements to ride through the Penmaenbach tunnel but have to dismount and carry their bicycles across a dual carriageway. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an unsafe arrangement and will he carefully reconsider what is involved in the proposal?
    Mr. Roberts: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am constantly considering that problem which has been brought to our attention recently, but the proper place to air the matter was at the public consultation stage on the tunnel. There are all sorts of difficulties in enabling cyclists either to use the tunnel or to use their bicycles on the path provided for them.

    Severn Barrage
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which industries in south Wales are the principal users of ports upstream of the proposed Severn barrage.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: These ports mainly handle steel, scrap metal, aggregates, agricultural products—including imported fruit and timber—machinery petrochemicals and imported cars.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the prospects of those industries can only be improved now that the threat of unofficial industrial action in those ports is, I hope, coming to an end? Does he further agree that, now that those ports can look forward to greater prosperity, the threat of a Severn barrage putting an additional barrier between them and their trade becomes even more serious?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. On the effect on shipping of the Severn barrage, whenever it may come, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has not yet received the final report from the Severn tidal power group, so it would be premature for me to comment at this stage on that aspect.

    Association of District Councils
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Association of District Councils in Wales; and what matters were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I met representatives of the Welsh counties committee and the committee of Welsh district councils at a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 15 June to discuss local government finance matters.
    Mr. Murphy: The Secretary of State is, of course, aware that the Association of District Councils is in favour of a dog registration scheme. Why, then, does he fly in the face of Welsh public opinion by not agreeing to such a scheme in Wales? Will he give a commitment to the House that he will provide sufficient finance to local authorities in Wales so that there can he proper dog warden schemes in every district in the principality?
    Mr. Walker: When I met the members of the Welsh counties committee and the committee of Welsh district councils, they did not at any time raise the subject of a dog registration scheme. Perhaps they share my view that although it sounds very nice in theory, in practice it would not work.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: When my right hon. Friend met the members of the committee of Welsh district councils, did they express to him their delight at the amount of investment in Wales that my right hon. Friend has been able to secure, largely as a result of Britain's membership of the European Community? Did they, like me, share not only the astonishment and delight that the Labour party has at last come round to accepting the idea of Europe, but the incredulity that the conversion campaign should be led by none other than the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?
    Mr. Walker: Again, the two committees did not raise those matters as a major topic of our discussion, but I am sure that they are delighted at the very considerable record of inward investment that Wales has enjoyed over the past few years—towards which, if I may say so, they made an important contribution.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Given the massive public concern about the environment and the decisive rejection of the Government's policies, shown by yesterday's election results, has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Association of District Councils the problems posed by the worst industrial polluter in Britain—the Furnacite plant in my constituency? Is he aware that continuing uncertainty about the future of that plant means that people in the Cynon valley are being subjected to unacceptable levels of pollution? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that unemployment is still rising there?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady knows better than anyone else in the House that, since I have been Secretary of State, I have had some rather conflicting advice from political
    6
    leadership in the valley as to exactly what it would like to be done about that plant. As the hon. Lady knows, the local authority is currently concerned with certain planning powers on which it has to make judgments.
    Mr. Livsey: How many proposals has the Secretary of State received from the district councils in the past 12 months about low-cost starter homes and low-cost housing to rent? Are not the district councils pressing him hard on this?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, it is a subject that has come up with local authorities and individuals, but I cannot give the number of actual representations. At present, discussions are going on both with the Housing Corporation in Wales and with district councils to see what sensible and practical plans can he developed.

    A55 (Link Roads)
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has yet had discussions with Clwyd county council concerning the need to provide link roads to the A55.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I attended a presentation given by the county council on its highway strategy on 14 April. The question of link roads to the A55 was covered.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in Clwyd among members of all political parties that the county council has got its road priorities wrong and their belief that link roads between the A55 and the A548 should be constructed before a third Dee crossing is even contemplated? If the county council refuses to change its priorities, will my hon. Friend do what the former Secretary of State said that he would do and designate such link roads as trunk roads, so that the Welsh Office can build them?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is some disagreement about priorities on the development of county roads in Clwyd, but it is up to all those concerned to get together with the county council. I visited my hon. Friend's borough council of Delyn last Friday and urged it to have discussions with the county council. We are talking about county roads which, as far as I know, will remain county roads. This is a local matter on which agreement should be reached, just as it has been reached, I believe, on the link from the A55 through the Rhuddlan bypass.

    Welsh Farming Unions
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Welsh farming unions; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I last met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales on 20 October 1988 to discuss the hill livestock compensatory review.
    Mr. Jones: Given the superb result for Labour in north Wales and the massive rejection in Europe of Tory policies, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that his colleagues in the Council of Ministers ensures that the

    7
    views of farmers in north Wales are properly represented, as they are not represented among farmers as a whole in Britain?
    Mr. Walker: Nothing delights the farmers of north Wales more than the sheepmeat premium regime, which I introduced and which they now want to save. When I introduced it, I did not receive great acclaim from the Opposition, but I am glad to say that they are now all eager to defend it. I am delighted to say that the sheep-meat regime is working well, with £56 million of benefits to Welsh farmers last year. We have heard of the great pleasure of the farmers' unions at the considerable increase in the beef suckler cow premium.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that his office did not manage to comply with the normal courtesies and inform me before Question Time that my question was linked with question No. 8.
    Will he confirm that every county in Wales has had recorded outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy? Will he publicly acknowledge that Welsh consumers are eating beef products derived from infected cattle? That statement has been acknowledged by the farmers' unions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the British Veterinary Association. To protect the health of the people of Wales and the economic livelihood of Welsh farmers as stockmen, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only effective way of keeping infected animals out of the food chain is by increasing compensation to realistic levels? Will he give an undertaking that he will do just that?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that Welsh farmers would be pleased at the way in which the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured, totally without justification, to scare the consuming public about Welsh beef. I regret his exaggerated remarks.
    I apologise for the bad mistake that my Office made in failing to inform the hon. Gentleman that his question would be linked. That should have been done.
    As for compensatory arrangements, they are constantly under review.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety among potato farmers in Pembrokeshire about the possible abolition of the Potato Marketing Board? Will he confirm that the Welsh Office has made representations to the review being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
    Mr. Walker: I can confirm that we have played a full part in the review mechanisms.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: In his discussions with the leaders of the farmers unions in Wales, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the Government's proposals for financial cuts in research and development establishments in Wales? Will he give farmers in Wales an assurance that the future of the Trawsgoed and Pwllpeirian experimental farms and the Welsh plant breeding station at Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, will be safeguarded in years to come?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reviews are currently taking place. We have discussed the matter with the farmers' unions in Wales and stressed the
    8
    importance of ensuring that the grass-growing areas of the United Kingdom, of which Wales is a prominent part, have the appropriate research facilities.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 11 May 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 5,293, 16,156 and 97,818 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis which enables a valid comparison to be made. In the last 12 months, Wales has experienced a larger fall in the percentage rate of unemployment than any other region of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hughes: Is this to be the Secretary of State's last hoorah? Does he appreciate that no amount of trumpeting on his part can hide the fact that unemployment in Wales is 8·3 per cent., bottoming out at double the figure that it was under Labour, the country faces a massive balance of payments problem, interest rates are 14 per cent. and the inflation rate is 8·3 per cent. and rising? Surely, far from being a success, the Government's record is a disaster of the first order. That has been recognised by the electorate in the past few days.
    Mr. Walker: If this were my last appearance, my one regret would be that I should no longer be getting questions from the hon. Gentleman, who is always helpful. I am grateful to him for continuing to ask this question and I hope that he will go on doing so. He considered that unemployment was bottoming out at 150,000, 140,000, 130,000, 120,000, 110,000 and 100,000. I am glad to say that as it goes down to well below the average for the European Community, the hon. Gentleman remains consistent in putting questions which show that last year Wales had the best record in falling unemployment of any region in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that within the past week there have been announcements in my own community of 150 possible redundancies at Thorne, 600 at the Merthyr Vale colliery and more than 100 at Hoover? According to the company, the job losses at Hoover were as a direct result of interest rates. In those circumstances, what does the Secretary of State say to his Cabinet colleagues about the impact of high interest rates on the mature manufacturing sectors in our communities?
    Mr. Walker: There is another question on this matter, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can list a set of good announcements which took place last month. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is much investment and expansion— —
    Mr. Rowlands: We are losing more than the new jobs coming.
    Mr. Walker: That is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Merthyr has a very good record on unemployment, and continues and will continue to do so. The impression that the hon. Gentleman seeks to give that there is some great depression in Merthyr is not the case.

    9
    We are about to embark on the biggest derelict land clearance programme in Wales in Merthyr, and the sites are all sites that the local authority wishes to use for further industrial development.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the dramatic reduction in unemployment in Delyn in the past two years—a fall of 50·1 per cent. between May 1987 and May 1989? Does he agree that this remarkable achievement is due to the fact that the Government gave my constituency the highest development area status, which the Labour party never did, and gave it the Delyn enterprise zone, which the Labour party opposed?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I am delighted with the developments in Delyn. I recently visited it and saw what was taking place. I was also delighted the other day to hear the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) say how staggered he was at the speed of the transformation of the Deeside economy.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the possibility of the Toyota engine plant coming to Clwyd, will the Secretary of State take advantage of his opportunity tomorrow to tell Gwynedd county council what steps will be taken to ensure that any spin-off jobs associated with the development, which we greatly welcome, come to areas such as Gwynedd, so that the benefits arising from the scheme are spread as much as possible?
    Mr. Walker: I never predict investments which may or may not come to an area, and no decisions have been made —[Interruption.]—I have never predicted the investments that might come to any part of Wales until the deal is completed and signed because it would be silly to do so. One of the main purposes of my discussions tomorrow will be to see how we can take advantage of all the considerable economic developments in the county.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman must not be complacent about unemployment in Wales. How will the privatisation of the four remaining skill centres reduce skills shortages in south and north Wales? Does he still believe that the economy has been mismanaged? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that the Government's Euro-campaign was disgraceful?
    Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that during the course of the next 18 months we shall be getting the new training and enterprise councils into place throughout Wales. They will involve considerable Government investment and will use all the training facilities that are available. So training in Wales in the coming years will, to a greater degree, meet the needs of a new and diversified economy; this will be greatly beneficial to the whole future economy of Wales.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had welcoming the Government's proposals for reform of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend and I have received a substantial number of representations welcoming the Government's objectives, as outlined in the White Paper
    10
    "Working for Patients", to build on the achievement of record levels of patient care which our record levels of investment in the NHS have made possible, so as to bring all areas of the NHS up to the standards of the best and provide even better health care for all.
    Mr. Rogers: I find it extraordinary that the Secretary of State has received
    "a substantial number of representations"
    welcoming these proposals. That is almost as vague as his answer to the first question this afternoon, when he said that it was impossible to obtain ordinary statistics within the National Health Service. I wish the Minister would give us a precise figure rather than talking vaguely about "substantial". Opposition Members have received large postbags against these proposals. I want to know who sent these letters to the Minister.
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman complains about the weight of letters that he may have received. Like other hon. Members, he has passed many of them on to us. We, too, are constituency Members, and we also receive letters directed to the Welsh Office from members of the public and the various professions involved. To count them all out and dissect them would involve a waste of money which would be better spent elsewhere. Had Opposition Members not wilfully gone around scaring people we should not have had to waste so much time answering so many letters.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Given that the Government spend almost half as much again on the Health Service in Wales in GDP terms as compared with their average European counterparts, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that he pursue his discussions on the improvements to the Health Service, so that what we all want to happen will happen and average performances will be brought up to the level of the best?
    Mr. Grist: I very much agree. Apart from the White Paper, there is also the GPs' contract, the aim of which is to ensure that we in Wales, who do not always receive the best of treatment by certain parts of the Health Service, receive the very best treatment. I should have thought that that was the desire of the constituents of every hon. Member.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Would the Minister care to name any doctors or consultants who approve of the Government's proposals? Will he admit that doctors and consultants across Wales are far more typically wholly opposed to them? A doctor wrote to me saying that he believes in three quarters of what the Government are doing and usually votes Conservative in general elections, but he believes that these proposals are, to quote him, "dishonest".
    Mr. Grist: I think that that doctor will find, as will many other people—perhaps including Opposition Members, as they learn a little more during the passage of the legislation and see the results of the consultations that have taken place—that our proposals will form the basis of the Health Service well into the next century—a modern Health Service, which is not based on the 1940s.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that these proposals will lead to greater efficiency and choice in the Health Service and should be warmly welcomed? Does

    11
    he agree that it is high time that the vicious and misleading propaganda campaign by the BMA was brought to an end?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our proposals are based on choice for those who work in the Health Service and for its patients. They should all be aware of the opportunities that are open to them as professionals and as patients. At the moment, too many people do not know what is going on and do not have freedom of choice. That is what Conservatives stand for, unlike the blinkered witness of the Opposition.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister not accept that his proposals are based not on choice but on secrecy? Will he tell us what has happened to the papers similar to those for England which the Secretary of State for Wales personally promised during the debate on 1 March? I stress that the word used was "similar" and not "identical". Will he also tell us when we are to have the subsequent papers on specific Welsh proposals which he promised in column 303 during the same debate? When will the Minister start debating the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will shortly make a statement on the detailed programme for implementation in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recall that all last year and the year before the Labour party complained that the Health Service was deteriorating and that it was just a matter of spending more money on it? However, when the Government bring forward positive proposals to make the Health Service more businesslike, the Opposition appear to have no policies whatever. If they do not agree with the Government is it not incumbent on them to say what they would do?
    Mr. Grist: They are an empty vessel making a great deal of sound. That is the truth of the matter.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the outturn figure for total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility for 1988–89; what was the outturn figure for 1987–88; and what is the growth in the budget (i) in money terms and (ii) in real terms after adjustment for the gross domestic product deflator for 1988–89.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The outturn for 1987–88 was £3,338 million. The estimated outturn for 1988–89 is £3,658 million. This represents a cash increase of 9·.6 per cent. and a real increase of 2·2 per cent.
    Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister for those figures. He says that there has been a 2·2 per cent. increase in real terms. That bears out what Lord Crickhowell said on the eve of the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, which was that there has been no new policy, no new initiative and little change in the scale of public spending during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. The people of Wales have rumbled that and the Secretary of State has lost both the Conservative seats that he has had to defend during his tenure of office.
    Mr. Walker: As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because whether it is a case of statistics or
    12
    Conservative posters he is always a great help to my party. An increase in real terms of 2·2 per cent. is in very sharp contrast to a decrease of 3 per cent. per year that took place in the last two years of the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not correct to say that that 2·2 per cent. is virtually entirely accounted for by the increase in nurses' pay which applied over the whole country? Is it not a fact that over the rest of the budget for Wales there has at best been standstill and in some cases cuts?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman of all people should mention nurses' pay. One of the reasons for the 3 per cent. reduction in each of the last two years of the Labour Government was the appalling treatment of nurses' pay by that Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is ashamed of that. I am glad to say that, for example, the budget of the Welsh Development Agency, which has an important economic impact on Wales, has increased by 53 per cent. in the last two years.

    Operations (Waiting lists)
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the waiting lists for (a) hip and (b) ear, nose and throat operations in Welsh hospitals.
    Mr. Grist: I am pleased to note the reduction in the number of people waiting for urgent treatment in the orthopaedic and ear, nose and throat specialties across Wales as a whole, but, naturally, it is disappointing that the number of people waiting for non-urgent treatment has increased slightly. Health authorities have the primary responsibility to reduce waiting times for patients. The Welsh Office is seeking to ensure that district health authorities address the issue through the record level of resources made available to them, by insisting on energetic management action and by specific central funding of particular local initiatives.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister not aware that in my community people have to wait for months even to be referred to hospital, let alone receive treatment in them? They have tried the Government's suggestion of looking at neighbouring hospitals only to find that waiting lists there for hip and ENT treatment are equally long. Is not the idea behind all this to drive many of our people into the private health service? As we saw in a dramatic case described in one of the national newspapers, a young child was charged about £800 for treatment for a nose bleed. Is that the sort of Health Service that the Minister wants?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked proposals such as treatment centres—He may be aware that one of the health authorities in Wales is likely shortly to bring proposals for one of these to the Welsh Office —the increase in the number of consultants, and the fact that there are shorter waiting times for different areas in Wales. At the moment, many doctors and patients know nothing about such places, and they might be prepared to use them if they knew about them. All these and other aspects of our health proposals will shorten waiting lists and spread choice for patients. The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that there is a problem of referral by doctors even within one health authority, in which one

    13
    consultant may have a waiting list of a year and another may have one of only three months. Patients should be aware of such knowledge and we want to spread it.

    Cardiff (Manufacturing Industry)
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he is able to report on the attraction of new manufacturing industry to the Cardiff employment exchange area.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Seven manufacturing projects have been secured for the Cardiff travel-to-work area over the past year, compared to three in the previous 12 months. Cardiff will also benefit substantially from the major projects taking place in neighbouring areas by firms such as Ford and Bosch.
    Mr. Morgan: Is it not a desirable objective that the economy in the Cardiff area should be developed in a balanced way, without an undue preponderance of service industries? Therefore is it not vital that a wide range of training opportunities for young people is provided? One can do that only if there is a healthy spread of manufacturing industry, and it may be necessary to review the development area status of the Cardiff area, to ensure that it can compete fairly to get new manufacturing industry. Since the closure of East Moors in 1978, we have not had one solid, large metal-cutting engineering employer in the area.
    Mr. Walker: Seven new manufacturing firms coming in over the past year is not a bad record. Having major investments of the magnitude of Ford and Bosch very near is of considerable advantage to Cardiff. I agree that we need a balance, but I know that the hon. Gentleman strongly welcomes the enormous expansion of the financial service industries in Cardiff. Training is required for that as well as for manufacturing industry, so we must see both. I am also pleased to say that the Cardiff bay development programmes are considerable programmes for manufacturing and industry as well as for service industry.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Senior Clergy (Programme)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners have considered helping to fund and initiate a programme for senior clergy similar to the Industry and Parliamentary Trust.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners' funds are not available for in-service training of the clergy. I am, however, passing my hon. Friend's suggestions to the General Synod's board for social responsibility, which is sponsoring a debate in the next month about the Church's ministry in industry, and commerce and to the advisory council for the Church's ministry. My hon. Friend will know that industrial chaplains are the main link between industry and the Church, and already, 57 full-time industrial chaplains are on the commission's payroll.
    Mr. Marshall: Would it not be useful if the leaders of the Church had a greater understanding of the ethos of the decision-making process by major British companies?
    Mr. Alison: I agree with my hon. Friend that such inside knowledge would be desirable for the Church that has to have its feet firmly planted in the world. Many of the Church of England's committees connected with the assets of the Church include senior clergy on them. For example, the management of the Church of England's property placed it in the top 10 per cent. of the league table of 43 funds, worth £10 billion or more. In property, it has performed extremely well. As to the stock exchange, in the league table consisting of 1,450 pension funds, the Church of England management of its assets placed it ninth in a percentile scale of 100. That again shows that the Church of England's feet, although other-worldly in many respects, are firmly planted in commercial reality.

    Incumbents (Emoluments)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what he estimates to be the value of the emoluments of the average incumbent; how these are calculated; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The present average stipend of an incumbent is estimated to be £9,500 per annum. In addition, an incumbent enjoys free accommodation and a non-contributory pension and death benefit scheme which together are worth on average £5,750 per annum on the most recent estimate.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show that a good clergyman is seriously underpaid? Will he estimate the value to clergymen of the free emolument that has been brought to Britain by the great preaching of Dr. Billy Graham?
    Mr. Alison: It is difficult to estimate the figure that should be placed upon Dr. Graham's preaching. I am sure, however, that his mission will produce many additions to the occupants of the pews in the Church of England. Unfortunately, the average donation made by those who worship in the Church of England is only £2·19 a week. There is considerable scope for an increase in voluntary giving.
    Mr. Frank Field: Would not one way of increasing the amount that the laity gives be for the right hon. Gentleman to ask at the next meeting of the board of governors that it sets a timetable for a 50 per cent. increase in clergy pay, and to ascertain how much the laity would have to increase its giving each week to meet that bill? Would not that be an appropriate target to meet over the next five years?
    Mr. Alison: That is a good and constructive idea. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the extent to which we have succeeded in overtaking inflation in many respects in increasing clergy stipends. On average, and taking emoluments in kind into account, the incumbent receives £15,000 a year, plus help towards, in effect, a free car.

    Office Accommodation
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list all the office accommodation used by the Church Commissioners in central London.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners have one main administrative office at No. 1 Millbank. Apart from this, they have only a small amount of office space integral to the administration of their London residential estates and archive depository.
    Mr. Thurnham: Given the high valuation of over £25 million that has been placed on No. 1, Millbank, will my right hon. Friend urge the commissioners to see whether they can find cheaper accommodation elsewhere? It occurred to me that there might be a little room at Lambeth palace.
    Mr. Alison: There is plenty going on already at Lambeth palace without the additional distraction of the lay members of the Church Commissioners. My hon. Friend has raised a serious and constructive issue. We want always to seek the most efficient use of Church resources. If there were evacuation from No. 1, Millbank, the costs of removal and the taking of comparable and reasonably centralised accommodation in London would be likely to be very high.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Sleeping Accommodation
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many beds are available for members of staff in and around the House, how they are allocated; what is the average occupancy rate against the number of sitting days; and what is the total cost of (a) attendance, (b) laundry and (c) cleaning of staff bedrooms.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Excluding official residences such as your own Mr. Speaker, there are 94 beds provided for staff of the House whose duties require their attendance for late sittings. These beds are also available for use in emergencies. Of this total, 42 beds are personally allocated and the remainder are available on a first-come-first-served basis. Precise details of occupancy rates and associated costs can be provided only at disproportionate expense.
    Mr. Field: One is tempted to ask precisely what an emergency would be. Given the considerable amount that is paid out to hon. Members for their accommodation allowance in London, which is over £9,000 a Member, will the hon. Gentleman consider handing over this valuable accommodation either to one of the many seaside landladies in my constituency, who could produce a reasonable profit from it, or to a hotel company that is experienced in managing property of this nature, so that the taxpayer can have full value for money?
    Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman waits until Wednesday he may get an idea of what constitutes an emergency need for overnight accommodation. The
    16
    accommodation is not used by hon. Members, with one or two exceptions such as your Deputies, Mr. Speaker. It is used by members of the staff, some of whom live beyond the mileage limit of late-night transport. The hon. Gentleman raises reasonable questions about how account can be taken of the best way of providing the service and I shall ensure that the Commission is made aware of his comments.

    Crown Immunity
    Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment he has made of the effect of the application of Crown immunity in the Palace of Westminster on the adequacy of health and safety provision for staff working in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Beith: Although, as I understand it, neither the enforcement provisions nor those relating to the prosecution of offences in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, apply to the Palace of Westminster, it is nevertheless the policy of the House to endeavour to comply fully with the requirements of the Act and with all other relevant statutory provisions, subject only to such specific exemptions provided for in legislation that arise from the constitutional position of the Crown.
    Mr. Allen: Is it not outrageous that in this day and age the House of Commons and the Palace of Westminster are not covered effectively by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and that Crown immunity still exists in respect of people who work and often are injured in this place? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that although the Health and Safety Executive is invited into this place on a grace and favour basis, there is a proper monitoring system by the House of Commons Commission to ensure safety conditions affecting people who live and work in the Palace of Westminster are improved to the standards that they would have to meet were the 1974 Act applicable?
    Mr. Beith: It is misleading to suggest that health and safety at work requirements for the staff working in this place are not covered. It is the object of the authorities of the House to ensure that they are observed in every respect. It is also misleading to suggest that officers of the Health and Safety Executive or other bodies must be invited here. They are admitted at their own request if they wish to come at other times. Nevertheless, it is important that we should be fully satisfied that the House is complying, so far as the limits of this building permit, with the legislation and that its monitoring should take that into account.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the present situation deprive the people who work here of their rights because under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, in the last resort, they have recourse to law in the event of a dispute between them and the employer? That right is not available to employees here. Our employees are at a disadvantage in relation to people outside this place.
    Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is not possible to prosecute the Crown. However, it is the policy of the House to try to ensure that its employees are not placed at a disadvantage and to meet liabilities where

    17
    any can be shown. If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of circumstances in which he feels that a dispute has not been properly resolved, I hope that he will draw it to my attention, because I am sure that the House of Commons Commission would not want that to happen.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Chamber (Blinds)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will issue guidance as to when it would be appropriate to draw the blinds in the House of Commons Chamber; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The blinds on the west side of the Chamber are raised as requested by right hon. and hon. Members, or on the judgment of Officers of the House on duty in the Chamber.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members rarely see the light and that to draw the blinds can only make matters worse? Does he also agree that sunlight can only enlighten our proceedings? Can we have much more of it?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. However, of course my hon. Friend has had no experience of sitting on the Opposition Benches, although he has been a Member of this place for quite a long time. I very much hope that he will not have that experience. I believe that the present system, left to the judgment of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, is the best way to deal with this.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it the Lord President of the Council's job or that of some other Minister, to draw the blinds on the current Tory electoral anguish?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is always hoping for preferment in the Labour party. One day he may be in charge of deciding whether the blinds should be raised or lowered.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that future guidelines will not state that the blinds must be drawn to satisfy the requirements of the television authorities?
    Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, we shall consider how the television experiment will work. I do not believe that the blinds will be any part of a television experiment, but we shall see how we get along.

    Early-day Motions
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to establish a system to allow debate of the early-day motion with the most signatures.
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: The Lord President of the Council will be aware that the original intention of early-day motions was to provide hon. Members with the possibility of debating issues of topical importance and relevance at an early day. Will he seek some reform of the system so that where a number of hon. Members, perhaps a percentage of
    18
    Conservative Members and Opposition Members, want to debate a matter, it can be debated perhaps once a week on a Friday morning? On that basis, over the past few weeks, there might have been debates on, for example, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewing industry, which is of importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House, the sexual abuse of children and perhaps the legal profession and its current efforts. This week the Lord President of the Council may receive an early-day motion requesting a discussion on the possibilities of an early election. Those debates might be very helpful to the House.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's proposal would fundamentally alter the whole early-day motion system. It is a means of enabling right hon. and hon. Members to express their views on a matter when there is no expectation that time will be available for a debate, and it serves the House well. I do not wish to see motions being touted around for signature, simply to secure a slot for a debate. Other channels are available to right hon. and hon. Members who wish to raise a matter in the House, including Adjournment debates and private Members' motions.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply to the original question, I might have had some sympathy with the question but for the fact that there is another side to the coin. Motions appear on the Order Paper day after day, week after week and month after month with but one signature—that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who wants £100,000 for his own personal publicity campaign. Should not the House find time to debate that outrageous suggestion?
    Mr. Wakeham: What Leicester did in the last Parliament, Nottingham seems to do in this Parliament. I shall content myself with saying that I spent a very happy day in Nottingham on Friday.

    Palace of Westminster (Map)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Lord President of the Council what maps or plans of the Palace of Westminster are available for guidance of new members; and if there is any plan to commission a new map or plan.
    Mr. Wakeham: A plan of the principal floor is included in the Serjeant at Arms' leaflet "Accommodation and General Facilities for Members, their Private Secretaries and Research Assistants", which is issued to all new hon. Members. Similar plans are included in a variety of other publications and guides. There are no plans at present to commission a new map or plan.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House accept that the plans that are available are inadequate for any new hon. Member who wants to find his or her way around the four floors of the House and the other buildings? Would it not be a good idea to make available an accurate map, so that right hon. and hon. Members can find all the offices within the House that they need to locate?
    Mr. Wakeham: Any decision on the need for the House authorities to provide further information for new hon. Members, including the commissioning of maps, would

    19
    initially be a matter for the Services Committee. I understand that such an approach has already been made to that Committee, which will consider it in due course.

  WALES

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the National Health Service White Paper, "Working for Patients", as it affects Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Chapter 11 of the "Working for Patients" White Paper describes the detailed programme of action for Wales. Since the publication of the White Paper, my hon. Friend and I have engaged in discussions with key interests to ensure that the programme is implemented so as to secure better health care for all. My right hon. Friend intends to make a statement on the details of the next steps of implementation in the near future.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister not agree that the NHS White Paper will be disastrous for the rural areas of Wales, that general practitioners will have fewer resources available to cover their areas, and that the creation of NHS hospital trusts will take resources away from community hospitals in rural areas, creating a wholly unacceptable two-tier Health Service?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the rural payments section of the GP's contract is still under consultation, so he is leaping ahead with yet another scare story.
    The possibility of having self-governing hospitals, or any other units or doctors, in Wales will rest in the first instance on their choosing to be self-governing and on acceptance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There will be no second status for anybody under our proposals.

    Lending Rate
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the recent increase in the minimum lending rate on the development of the economy of Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I am pleased to say that since interest rates have been at high levels two recent major surveys have both shown considerable confidence in the level of investment and job
    20
    creation within the Welsh economy. In the first five months of this year the excellent record of Wales for inward investment continued. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in 1988 Wales achieved the record both for jobs and for finance for inward investment. Unemployment continues to fall, and last year's 2·5 percentage point reduction in the Welsh rate was the largest of all the United Kingdom regions.
    Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that inward investors might in the short term be able to cope with interest rates of 14 or 15 per cent. but that 95 per cent. of the Welsh economy is indigenous and is not concerned with inward investment, and that that sector has been damaged by high interest rates? Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better to have a monetary and fiscal mix and to restore some of the cuts made in higher-rate taxes two years ago, thereby taking pressure off interest rates and to some extent redistributing wealth from the more prosperous regions of Britain to the less prosperous, such as Wales?
    Mr. Walker: A great deal of the investment activity in Wales is very much concerned with the indigenous industries, and that is true in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. A recent survey carried out by the Institute of Directors in Wales showed that the majority of firms there expected an increase of 10 per cent. or more in their labour forces in the coming 12 months. Another factor of considerable importance to Welsh industries is the level of company profits that has enabled those investment programmes to take place.

    Welsh Development Agency (Property Development)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of expenditure in property development by the Welsh Development Agency in 1987–88 and in 1988–89.
    Mr. Peter Walker: At £45·8 million, the Welsh Development Agency's property-related expenditure in 1988–89 was 43 per cent. higher than the £32·1 million in the previous financial year.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that expenditure has played an important part in helping to reduce unemployment in Wales? Does he expect expenditure to be even higher this year?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that both the agency's factory building programme and its derelict land clearance programme are at record heights.

Student Top-up Loans
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the arrangements for administering top-up loans for students.
The House will recall that on 9 November I announced the Government's proposals for introducing non-means-tested top-up loans. I said that from 1990, in addition to their grant, all home students in full-time higher education —except postgraduates—would be eligible for a top-up loan averaging over £400 in a full year. I explained that it would be offered at a real interest rate of zero, and that repayments would be deferred when a graduate's income is low.
In that statement, I made clear the Government's view that the top-up loan scheme would be best administered by the financial institutions. The scheme will of course be subject to the necessary legislation and, as I told the House, the Government will bring forward a short Bill to provide legislative authority for it. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, following discussion with representatives of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers, a scheme has been designed which is agreed to be a cost-effective and feasible means of introducing top-up loans in September 1990 as planned.
Under the scheme there will be a private sector loan admistrator, in the form of a company established and wholly owned by participating financial institutions, under contract to the Government. Participation in the company will be open to a wide range of financial institutions. It is clear from my discussions with members of Committee of London and Scottish Bankers that—subject to the satisfactory outcome of the contractual negotiations—a sufficient number of financial institutions will wish to participate from the outset to ensure that the company will be viable.
Under the arrangements students who wish to benefit from top-up loans will obtain a certificate of entitlement from their university, polytechnic or college. The certificates can be presented to the branches of the banks and other financial institutions that own that company, or to the company itself, which will make the resources available to the student and maintain a record of the transaction. The Government will fund the company for the administrative costs of the scheme and, of course, for the loans themselves.
The Government have carefully considered the repayment system, in the light of the responses to the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students". We have concluded that repayment should be on the basis of equal amounts, adjusted annually for inflation, being repaid over a standard period. The obligation to repay will be deferred when a graduate's income falls below given levels in relation to average national income. Deferment will be arranged with the company on the basis of self-certification of income and subject to audit. In order to minimise any default on repayments, there will be a financial incentive under which the company will earn a proportion of its fee through securing a high repayment rate.
The Government will meet the costs of detailed preparatory work by the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers and by the company in the period from now onwards. Parliamentary approval will be sought in an
22
additional Supplementary Estimate, to be presented shortly. We shall start immediate negotiations with the interested financial institutions to conclude a contract to cover the operation of the scheme, and that will of course be conditional on the Royal Assent to the Act. The range of costs indicated in the preparatory work is from £8·3 million to 11·5 million for start-up costs, and from £10·4 million to £14 million for annual operating costs. I am glad to say that those are many times smaller than the amounts that I have been reading about in the press over the last few months.
It is right that this scheme should be administered in the private sector, as our financial institutions possess skills in information and banking systems that are not readily available in the public sector. I am satisfied that the arrangements offer an efficient scheme and good value for money, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: If this is good news, as the Secretary of State appears to suggest, why did he hide away this announcement from the voters until after the European elections? Why did he consistently block all our requests for statements and why have the Government welshed on their promise of a debate?
Is the Secretary of State aware that under this grotesquely incompetent scheme the nation ends up with the worst of all worlds, in which the taxpayer pays much more while the student is given much less? Will he confirm that with inflation at 8 per cent., instead of the 3 per cent. forecast in the White Paper, and with the abolition of housing benefit, almost every student will be worse off from next year?
The right hon. Gentleman's statement says, in carefully crafted weasel words, not that there has been an agreement with the financial institutions but that a scheme has been designed
"which is agreed to be a cost-effective and feasible means of introducing top-up loans".
Will the Secretary of State say precisely what has been agreed with the financial institutions, or has nothing bankable been agreed with those institutions?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has come close to giving a false impression about costs by specifying costs which relate only to the early years of the scheme when there are relatively few debtors? What will be the cost per student and the cost per outstanding advance once the scheme is fully operational? What figure was advised by Price Waterhouse? Why is there no reference to interest rate subsidy in the statement or, indeed, to its cost, in the White Paper? What are the costs of the preparatory work that the taxpayer is now supposed to meet?
Is the Secretary of State aware that on the most conservative estimates, the administrative set-up and write-off costs, once the scheme is fully operational, will not be less than £100 per debtor? What kind of bloody-mindedness is it that persuades the Secretary of State to give £100 to moneylenders, bureaucrats and bailiffs when instead he could use that £100 per student to restore the real value of the grant? Is he aware that in the United States the cost of defaults on loan schemes such as this is now running at $1·8 billion, one third of the total cost of the scheme? What does the Secretary of State expect the defaults cost of this scheme to be? Will he confirm that it will cost the Exchequer more while giving

23
students less until decades into the next century and that there is even a prospect of this scheme never breaking even?
Why has the Secretary of State said nothing this afternoon about his earlier grand claims that a loans scheme would increase access and opportunities—I thought that that was the argument in favour of the scheme—or has he now accepted, in the light of the 95 per cent. of representations that he received against the scheme, that it will put students off going into higher education and damage the opportunities of those from low-income homes?
Is the Secretary of State aware that his ministerial career is littered with wheezes and gimmicks which seemed a good idea at the time but which turned out to be half-baked and unworkable? Does he intend to see this barmy loan scheme through, or is he going to cut and run to another Department and leave the mess to someone else —as he did with his previous great invention, the poll tax?
Mr. Baker: I am delighted that the spirit of the hustings still survives. I advise the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) not to be too cocky about last Thursday's results. We shall expose the fact that the Labour party, despite its new proposals in its new manifesto, is still Socialist in tooth and claw, and that its proposals on education are totally negative, in that the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish schools and reverse our reforms. [Interruption.] I do not know whether this is the first skirmish in the opening campaign for the general election in two or three years' time, but I am quite confident that if it is we shall eventually win. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the scheme.
Mr. Baker: I was provoked shockingly, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that next year students will be worse off, but that will not be the case. We estimate the disentitlement to benefit next year to be about £65 million and the increased additional resources available through top-up loan schemes will be £167 million. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen for a minute. In addition to the £167 million there will be £15 million of access funds.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about bank participation. We have had discussions with a number of banks and other financial institutions. I am clear that there will be substantial interest in participation in the scheme, subject to the negotiation of the final contract. In particular, it is clear that major clearing banks will be ready to participate in the scheme. It is for individual banks and other financial institutions, including building societies, to say whether they will take part in the scheme. That must be their decision, but I am confident, from assurances given personally to me, of substantial interest in participating in the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman talked about those students who will be worse off. As a result of top-up loans, 120,000 students who currently receive no maintenance grant whatsoever, because they are means tested out of it, will have the availability of a top-up loan of about £400 a year on average. Similarly, 160,000 students who receive a reduced grant as a result of parental contribution, but whose parents do not make it up, will also benefit from the
24
top-up loan facility. In addition, some 50,000 students in higher education who have no entitlement to an award at the moment will benefit from top-up loans.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about default. We always include provision for the cost of default in our arithmetic. Annex E of the White Paper on top-up loans shows an illustrative figure of a default rate of 10 per cent. Some default is inevitable, but I do not expect it to be as high as 10 per cent. Some default is inevitable by the nature of the scheme. For example, we will require the loans to be made available to all students who are taking higher degree courses, irrespective of their credit rating. If a graduate unfortunately dies after graduation, the debt of that person will not be taken into his or her estate; it will be written off. Similarly, the scheme allows any outstanding debt to be written off by the age of 50. Those are unusual characteristics of a banking operation, so we have to meet them.
We have always assumed that the Government will have to stand behind the cost of default, as illustrated in the White Paper, but the operating company will earn a proportion of its fee through securing a high repayment rate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about default rates, particularly in America. I remind him that the rate of default in Norway is 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. in Sweden and Japan. In America, the default rate is high for two reasons. First, there are no proposals for deferment while American graduates are earning, so those on low incomes are expected to repay and they default. We are allowing for the obligation to pay to be related to income. Secondly, in America the loan scheme has been extended to those whom we would call further education students and it has proved very difficult to track them as they move all over America.
As I said in my original statement, costs will be between £8 and £12 per student account. In 1995 we estimate that the operating costs will be between £10·5 million and £14 million. That gives the £8 to £12 per student account in 1995. As for what that represents as a percentage of the money outstanding, by 1995 we estimate that there will be an outstanding amount of £1·2 billion and administrative costs of £10 million to £14 million, which is a very small proportion—about 1 per cent. That is all set out in the original White Paper in annex E—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman would read the White Paper and be familiar with his figures. Once again he shows that he has not done his homework. He has no ideas; he does not even have ideas about our ideas.
Mr. James Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed by Conservative Members and by the country? It will increase the degree of access to higher education by providing a source of cheap funding. Will he confirm that it will be just about the cheapest money in town?
In response to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I should like to draw two further points from my right hon. Friend. First, will he confirm that the incidence of default in Scandinavia is between 1 and 2 per cent.? Secondly, on access funds, the original figure quoted in the White Paper was £15 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many Conservative Members consider that £15 million is inadequate and would like him to endeavour to improve that figure?

25
Finally, when we introduce legislation in this matter, is it intended also to have some reference to the funding of student unions and to freedom of speech in higher education and in universities?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend asked various questions. I can confirm that the default rate in Norway is 1 per cent. It is 2 per cent. in Sweden and 2 per cent. in Japan. My hon. Friend asked also about the level of access funds. The access funds in the White Paper were stated to be about £15 million—that is, £5 million for the universities and polytechnics, £5 million for postgraduates and £5 million for the FE sector. There have been representations during the consultation process that those figures should be higher. I note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. Those decisions will be taken next year in the PES round.
My hon. Friend asked whether it is the cheapest money in town. Certainly, it does not bear a real rate. It is a real rate of zero. It means that the outstanding amount is uprated by the rate of inflation each year. Many students will find that an attractive deal.
My hon. Friend asked about student unions. I recognise the concern on behalf of those students who do not wish, through their own student unions, to be affiliated to the National Union of Students. I am considering various options for change in the present arrangements, and I will bring forward proposals in due course. I will also publish shortly the report of the survey on the student unions and the NUS.
My hon. Friend asked also about freedom of speech. I recognise a real concern that some visiting speakers have been unable to secure a fair hearing, or any hearing at all, on certain campuses. I have consulted the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals on how best to strengthen the provisions of the 1986 legislation. I am now considering the way forward, and I will bring proposals forward in due course. If necessary, we shall consider further legislation.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State deny the statement by one of the bank officials whom he met last week to the effect that they were still all at sea about who would pay for the scheme, who would run it, and so on? Does he deny that he cannot say today that anybody has unconditionally agreed to participate in the scheme?
Is it not already the case that, on previously projected figures, it would cost £750 million over 10 years, on the Secretary of State's basis, before the scheme breaks even at the end of the decade? That is on the basis of a 3 per cent. rate of inflation, which is clearly, under his Government's administration, a wildly inaccurate estimate. The additional costs announced today will total at least £150 million. Is it not the reality that the scheme will cost at least £1 billion or more to the Treasury? At the moment, that is not a cost that the Government are having to finance at all, but will involve extra Government money under their scheme of public expenditure.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman must refer to annex E in the White Paper. I am sure that he is familiar with the figures. He will know that it will cost the Government money until the break-even year. As a result of the outlined cost figures that I have given today, it is possible that the break-even year may move about half a year forward, from 2001 to 2002—no more than that. The
26
Government are committed to reducing the rate of inflation. That remains the Government's unremitting target.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: As my right hon. Friend and the House are aware, I am not exactly an enthusiastic supporter of the scheme, either in principle or in practicality. Although, of course, I shall look carefully at my right hon. Friend's statement, in view of what happened last November, I advise the House to look at the statement carefully and to question some of the figures. As it is now grimly evident that the cost of the scheme will primarily be borne by the taxpayer, before drafting legislation will my right hon. Friend consider whether the figures could be rather more precise, whether the implications could be made rather clearer, and whether the House could have a debate on these matters?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred earlier to the question of a debate. I should welcome such a debate and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is in his place, has registered my expectation that there will be one because it would be helpful. I am happy to give the figures. Indeed, the figures that I put forward this afternoon take us much further forward in our discussions with the banks. Coupled with the figures set out in the "Top-up Loans for Students" White Paper and in annex E, they mean that the figures are before the country and the House. I am happy to consider what my hon. Friend has said. I do not know whether I can convert him to support this scheme, but I believe that he has something of an open mind.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have not needed to read the White Paper or to listen to the statement about this type of loan because it was available before the last war? Indeed, I went to university on such a grant and paid it back out of my gratuity at the end of the war. Therefore I understand the nature of the grant and its effect on students without guessing about it. When I read in the White Paper that the aim is to save public expenditure, that reinforced my view—which is strongly felt because I represent an inner-city area where practically nobody goes into higher education—that all that this will do is to make it doubly difficult for the sort of people that we want to get to university actually to get there. If that is dyed-in-the-wool Socialism, count me a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist.
Mr. Baker: It is just as well that the right hon. Gentleman does not live in Australia these days, where the Socialist Government have introduced charging for tuition costs and fees at universities. I am not implying that the hon. Member for Blackburn would seek to follow that, but simply wish to point out that, associated with that proposal in Australia is the graduate tax, a proposal that has won support from some Labour Members. Indeed, the Labour spokesman in the House of Lords favours a graduate tax and I believe that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the immediate predecessor of the hon. Member for Blackburn, also favours a graduate tax. There is a lot of new thinking in the Labour party in this area— —
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Some new thinking.
Mr. Baker: Well, as my hon. Friend has said, there is some new thinking.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) raised the question of access. We are the only developed country not to have some form of loans system for students. In the other countries that have top-up loans alongside grants, a higher proportion of the population of young people goes to college, university or the equivalent of polytechnics, especially in America, where there are extensive loans systems. I am often told that such a system will discourage women, but in America women now constitute well over half the student population. The system has not proved a deterrent.
I advise the right hon. Gentleman that I am committed to the expansion of higher education. The Governments of whom he has been a leading member, and Conservative Governments, have always been constrained by the high cost of higher education in our country. The right hon. Gentleman served in the Cabinet that cut higher education significantly, both in numbers and in capital. Student loans will represent a new flow of funds into higher education and will broaden the financial platform.
Mr. David Madel: How will discretionary grants fit in when the scheme is under way? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when all the details have been worked out the greatest care and sensitivity will be exercised towards those students with long courses, such as medicine or veterinary medicine?
Mr. Baker: Discretionary grants will, of course, continue, as will the normal mandatory grants. It will be up to the local authorities to decide exactly what the position is and whether they give grants. Those people who are not successful in obtaining a discretionary grant—there are many tens of thousands each year—will be eligible for top-up loans, which will be non-means tested. That represents a guaranteed and assured source of extra available funds.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State should know that his announcement will have been greeted with great disappointment, if not dismay, by the great majority of students in British universities who were hoping that the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon would announce that he had had second thoughts about this mean, paltry and damaging scheme.
Is the Secretary of State not aware that medical students, who have five-year courses, three of which are taken up with clinical studies, lasting 46 weeks of the year, have had and will have no opportunity of supplementing their inadequate grants with extra earnings during the long vacation and other periods? Is he not aware that the average medical student today in London is having to borrow from banks up to £3,000 over the length of his course to meet the present deficiencies in his student grant? What effect will this additional burden of loan have upon medical students and especially upon those who have been recruited from rather less affluent circumstances than the Secretary of State normally considers, and on women students, who now form so large a part of our total student intake for medical purposes?
Mr. Baker: I will take no lectures on inadequate grants and general expenditure on higher education, from a right hon. Member of the House who was a member of the
28
Labour Cabinet that substantially cut higher education. In general, there were substantial cuts in higher education in 1976, because the Labour Government ran the country so badly. I believe that many students will welcome the proposal for top-up loans. I have already indicated the large numbers of students—the 120,000 who receive no grants at present; the 160,000 who have their grants reduced and the 50,000 who are or who are not on discretionary awards in higher education—who will benefit by having an available source of money, at a cost lower than the costs that the right hon. Gentleman suggested medical students would pay.
Medical students can look foward to a high income but, if they do not achieve that high income, they will be protected by the deferment arrangements. I recognise that the medical students' extra years of study will lead to extra debt, and the repayment term may need to be extended for them.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Can I press my right hon. Friend on the question of medical students? In the United States the average doctor starts his medical career with a debt of $50,000. We do not want to see that happening here.
Mr. Baker: It is highly unlikely that there will be any figure of that scale. If my hon. Friend looks at the figures, the average loan is £400 a year in the first year, building up slowly over a period of years. We do not, therefore, envisage that scale of indebtedness for medical students. The point I would make again is that, if there is extra debt, the repayment period, which we have envisaged would be five years for a normal student, could be extended to recognise that fact.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: If the Secretary of State was meditating on the statement during his sponsored walk in my constituency on Friday, I doubt whether it has done him any good. Will he address himself specifically to the effect of the scheme on mature students? Is he arguing that the introduction of such a top-up loan scheme will benefit and increase access? Where is the evidence of that in the statement beyond that which he was saying in the White Paper?
Mr. Baker: I very much enjoyed going on a sponsored walk in a very beautiful part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency on a lovely day. I thought that it was quite a good day for a leading Conservative politician to be walking in the Welsh hills.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the availability of student support in other developed countries as compared with this country, he will see that what stands out in this country is its very high level of student support, and that has had an inhibiting effect on the expansion of higher education over the years. In the United Kingdom, for example, in 1984 prices, student support per student is £750; in West Germany £70; in France £180 and in Japan £30. We believe that it is reasonable to expect students to make some contribution towards their upkeep costs while they are studying.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: In acknowledging that my right hon. Friend has worked extremely hard to come forward with a viable scheme, may I put to him the concern that perhaps some of us have, which is that unless one means-tests the availability of the loans, they may end up as a subsidy to middle class families? The people who

29
will benefit are those parents on good incomes, with high tax rates, who will make sure that their children apply for the grants, which will be at very low cost, because it is money that they would otherwise have to find. Far from encouraging access from students from low-income familes, it could end up being a subsidy for those who, perhaps, have lesser claim.
Mr. Baker: I certainly would not introduce means testing for these loans. One of the attractive features of our scheme is that the loans are not means tested. The parents of about one third of students—for example, middle class parents—who have their grants reduced because of means testing do not make up the full entitlement that their children would have if they were not means tested. This system will he of considerable benefit to that group.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State name the banks and financial institutions that have been in negotiation with him? Exactly what are their terms in respect of the costs that they are prepared to bear in the administration of this scheme? Was the White Paper the basis of their discussion? If so, is not the whole thing bogus, because the inflation rates used in the White Paper were 5 per cent. in 1989–90 and 3·5 per cent. in 1990–91 and the succeeding inflation rate was 3 per cent.? The figures in the report cannot form the basis of a real estimate of the cost of administering the scheme. What is the present estimate of the real inflation rate in the years ahead for the administration of this scheme?
Mr. Baker: I have said that the Government's clear intention is to reduce inflation, and we are pursuing economic policies that will secure that end.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the White Paper was the basis of discussions with the banks. We said that there were certain features that any loan scheme would need to have. One was universal accessibility to all students, irrespective of their position. That is not a normal banking function. We said also that there should be deferment if, after graduation, a graduate has a salary or wage a certain percentage below the national average wage. Again, that is not a characteristic of a normal banking repayment scheme. We have ensured that both factors are built into the scheme as discussed.
I reiterate that it is up to individual banks and other financial institutions, including building societies, to say whether they will participate, but assurances, given personally to me, show that there is substantial interest from the clearing banks in participating in the scheme.
Several Hon. Members rose— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to call all the hon. Members who are now standing. This is an Opposition day, the subject of which has been chosen by the Social and Liberal Democrats. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.15 pm. If questions are brief, I shall be able to call all those hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the average student borrows £370 a year and is required to repay it at commercial rates, so this scheme will lighten the load? Will he cost the increase in the number of students in higher education over the past 10 years? There are now 266,000 more
30
students in higher education, and we are moving towards one in five of the eligible population before the turn of the century.
Mr. Baker: I cannot confirm the precise figure, but the average indebtedness of students is of that order. Various surveys on the subject have been carried out. My hon. Friend asked me to cost the increase in the number of students. We have allowed in annex E to the White Paper for the increase in the number of students. Since we have been in office there has been an increase of about 200,000 in the number of students. This has been one of the most rapid periods of expansion, most of which has taken place in the polytechnics, although the universities are begining to expand again. The financial arrangements that I made in respect of universities and polytechnics, and which I announced about a month ago will stimulate polytechnics and universities to expand their numbers. The funding is changing so that it is very much a matter of the money following the students, and that is a demand-led expansion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not today's statement a way for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to try to convince the taxpayer that he will use taxpayers' money to introduce the scheme as a first step so that, later on, the Government can spread the idea abroad that student loans will provide a much greater part of the grant than at present? In other words the Government are using taxpayers' money to get across the idea and will then hammer the students. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Johnson Matthey is one of the banks with which he is having discussions—or is it the Abbey National? When students decide to protest against this evil scheme and come to the House of Commons to do so, will he rejoice in seeing Kate Adie, Brian Barron and other journalists infiltrating picket lines of police who are trying to block the students on Westminster bridge?
Mr. Baker: I am sure that if there is a group of militant students waiting to protest, the hon. Gentleman will be at the head gingering them up. I doubt whether his leader would sanction that action. I am not prepared to name any individual bank but neither I nor, as far as I am aware, any of my officials have had discussions with Johnson Matthey.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we were trying to persuade foreign sentiment abroad. I do not follow his argument.
Mr. Skinner: No, I did not. I said that a sprat was being used to catch a mackerel.
Mr. Baker: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. It would be foreign sentiment if it were abroad, and I thought he said that. The hon. Gentleman should re-read the White Paper, which makes it clear that from 1990 we shall introduce top-up loans, the grant will be frozen and the loan will go up over a period. We have not disguised our intentions about this, which has been an essential part of the proposals announced in November. Instead of coming in here and shouting at my right hon. and hon. Friends all the time, the hon. Gentleman should do his homework and read the White Paper.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those student graduates entering the job market in the 1990s will be doing so at a more favourable

31
time than for many years? In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to transfer part of the cost of student maintenance from the taxpayer to the employer? Most students will have very little to lose and a great deal to gain from the introduction of the scheme.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. It is incontrovertible that there is to be what statisticians call a demographic trough and that there will be a dramatic drop in the number of 18, 19 and 21-year-olds in the course of the next five to 10 years. Graduates will find that they are moving into a buyers' market when they leave college. There is very little graduate unemployment today, and there will be even less in the four or five years ahead. My hon. Friend raises the interesting point that in those circumstances, companies may tend to pay off student debts. That is now becoming a regular feature of American schemes in which, if an employer wants to take on a particular person, as part of the employment package he is prepared to write off the debt or provide favourable repayment terms. It may be that various employers in various parts of this country, both in private and public sectors, will want to move towards such arrangements.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State going to freeze basic grants or progressively reduce the basic grant using the loan as cover? Has he seriously considered the effect on women? I heard what he said about women's experiences in the United States. The scheme is bound to give women not only a negative dowry, but a disincentive to return to work at a time when the Government are trying to encourage teachers to return to work after basic training. Is the Secretary of State aware that this scheme contradicts other Government policies?
Mr. Baker: I do not accept that. Some of the other student loan schemes across the world do not include deferment for a woman graduate who goes off to have a family. It is expected that while she is not earning she will repay some of the debt, but that is not so under our scheme. When people cease to be in employment they fall below the threshold level, so the obligation will be deferred.
As regards the structure of the scheme, I confirm that under the proposals in the White Paper the grant will be increased again next year. Its level will be resolved in the PES round for 1990. It will then be frozen in cash terms over a period of years. It will not be reduced in cash terms. The top-up loan will begin and increase yearly thereafter.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: To the extent that disabled students have additional needs, will my right hon. Friend consider adapting his excellent scheme so that they can have extra funds and, when they can earn enough, will he consider helping with easier payments by increasing their thresholds?
Mr. Baker: I shall certainly look into that. Disabled students who graduate and take jobs may well qualify for some of the deferment arrangements. There are allowances in the grants for certain aspects of disability.
Mr. Max Madden: How will students be credit-rated in future? Will loans be liable to attachment for non-payment of the poll tax; and will loans be available to students who are overseas nationals?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's question is about the civil debts of students, not about this particular scheme. A student's credit rating will depend upon whether he repays his debts. We envisage, as I said today, that a loan facility will be available through the loan administrator, a company which will be set up to provide the loan. The banks will be able to bring their considerable expertise, through the branch network, to the recovery of debt.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Despite the fact that loans will not have to be paid back until students have completed their courses and are earning a living, does my right hon. Friend agree that their introduction will have the psychological effect of concentrating the minds of aspiring students on choosing courses which will be useful and worthwhile in later life?
Mr. Baker: Yes, one of the things that we discovered when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and his predecessor visited various countries was that in Sweden, for example—radical, Left-wing Sweden—where there has been a loan scheme like this for years, it was said that the scheme had concentrated students' attention and often increased their motivation.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme will make many students think. I do not believe that it will be harmful to any course of study. More and more young people aged 18 and 19 in the student world recognise the enormous return which they will earn from higher education. There has been great increase in their numbers, about 200,000, in the past 10 years. That encouraging figure is welcomed on all sides of the House.
Economic analyses have shown that the return to a student from higher education is an estimated 25 per cent. on the amount spent on that education. The return to society for that amount is between 5 and 8 per cent. It is a good investment.
Mr. David Winnick: It is not too difficult to know what the Secretary of State would have said about the scheme if he had remained on the Back Benches. Is he aware that this is the sort of Thatcherite discriminatory nonsense that the electorate rejected so decisively on Thursday?
Mr. Baker: Is it Thatcherite of Sweden, Norway, Germany and Japan to have a loan scheme? Of course not. That was empty, windbag oratory.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I was one of seven children from a very modest background; each of us had the benefit of six years in higher education. That was only possible with adequate student grants. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the continuing devaluation of the student grant, and his student loan proposals, will cut off millions of people from modest backgrounds who possess the talent that the country needs, and will make higher education more and more a middle class preserve?
Mr. Baker: First, there is no evidence abroad that this happens and secondly, as he knows and about which I am constantly chided, the real value of student grants in the United Kingdom has fallen since 1979.
Mr. Straw: It has been deliberately cut.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman says that it has been deliberately cut. That confirms what I say, that it has fallen.
Since 1979 the number of students has gone up by

33
200,000. That includes full-time and mature students. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that part-time students are wrong, he has no policy at all for the expansion of higher education.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Does not the patent inadequacy of the Secretary of State's responses show the latest instalment of a saga of breathtaking incompetence concerning the whole scheme? It can only be implemented by a dogmatic determination, not to bring in top-up loans but to destroy the basis of the grant system. Did I hear the Secretary of State right when he said that all students are now to be credit rated as part of the scheme? Will he come clean and tell us the true administrative costs in the later years? On many occasions he referred to annex E. Will he give an undertaking to publish an amended version of annex E showing the true administrative costs, including the default rate cost and the interest rate cost?
Does not his statement unforgivably overlook the effect on those students and institutions whose courses are longer? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, that applies to medical students. Do the proposals not also deal a body blow to the traditions of Scottish higher education, whose needs have been as contemptuously ignored in the statement as they were in the White Paper itself? What about the effect on teachers and on their training? Is not the statement a body blow to the prospects of successfully addressing the teaching crisis? Above all, will not this shameful statement deny access to higher education to the very students whom we ought to be attracting and who are presently denied that opportunity? Does the Secretary of State realise that his kamikaze determination to go down in history as the man who brought free access to higher education to an end will be opposed with the utmost vigour by the Labour party, the students and, and I am sure, by the public at large?
Mr. Baker: Methinks the hon. Gentleman "doth protest too much". The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that under this Government there has been a substantial expansion of higher education. I have proposals to expand it even further. I have provided money for expansion in the last three years and I shall strive to do so in the coming years. The hon. Gentleman asked about teachers. He well knows that I am bringing forward proposals which will probably mean that many teachers will not do the fourth year. I think that the hon. Gentleman has supported a policy which suggests that the course for a bachelor of education degree should no longer be a four-year course, but a three-year course with one term in school. I do not think that I misinterpret the proposals. In that case they stand equal with other students. The hon. Gentleman asked if I would publish a revised version of annex E. I am quite happy to consider that and if it is helpful I shall do so. [Interruption.] I am free with information because there are no secrets in my Department. The hon. Gentleman started his attack on me by questioning my competence. I can be accused of many things but I am not usually accused of being incompetent.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

OPPOSITION DAY
  13TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Transport
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. I do not know whether you are aware, Mr. Speaker, but last week when the business statement was made and in subsequent discussions—you know how they talk in this place—people said, "What is on the agenda for Monday?" They were told that it was the SLD Supply day and that its members would decide. They were told, "We can tell you on the record that it is about Hong Kong." I thought, "That sounds attractive and it might mean about 2 million or 3 million votes in the Euro elections if, perhaps, we can bring a few back." Since then, there has been a change and here we are about to discuss transport. I am not knocking that, but this place has to be regulated in a proper fashion.
    Very shortly, the television cameras will be coming in and the television people will want to know on Thursday what is to be debated. They will not be satisfied with this "anything will do" approach by people who are disappearing from view. They will want to know. They will ask, "What's on?" They will be told that it is Hong Kong and they will not be very happy when they find out that it is transport. I am giving some advice for future debates.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, we are regulated here by the Order Paper and not by rumour.
    4.20 pm
    Mr. Richard Livsey: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the lack of adequate investment in public transport, which has resulted in severe congestion and low staff morale leading to the current misery for commuters; and calls for a national transport strategy which invests in the public transport network, encourages a move from road to rail travel and ensures that benefits of new investment in projects such as the Channel Tunnel are shared by the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
    Given the impending chaos that will arise on Wednesday on the public transport system, especially in London, and that the transport crisis with which we are confronted is a major environmental problem, our debate today should be welcome.
    The lack of investment by the Government in public transport is deplorable. In particular, the neglect of the rail system in comparison with the investment in the road system beggars belief. In the time that they have been in power, have the Government built any new railway lines? Given their admiration for Victorian values, they should be aware that the Victorians would find the Government's achievements in this respect laughable. What new rolling stock have they provided on the railway lines? What assistance has been given to staff?
    This discrimination against the railway system is compounded by the loaded methods of investment criteria against the railway system in comparison with the road system. The Government only started to wake up to the problem of investment in our railways in 1983. Investment was in the doldrums from 1975 to 1983, and, at 1989–90 prices, investment dropped from £546 million in 1975 to

    35
    £347 million in 1983. One result of this failure has been congestion, especially in the south-east, where a massive growth in passenger traffic has resulted in misery for commuters. The Government have failed the nation with their transport policies and the congestion on Britain's roads is a direct result of the Government's failure to invest in public transport.
    Daily, harassed commuters travel in overcrowded, tatty rail coaches that are a misery and, in some cases, no better than cattle trucks. These are overloaded, and it is no wonder that staff on the London Underground and Network SouthEast are at their wits' end. Only a massive investment in rail, both in the cities and in main-line electrification, will alleviate these horrendous problems. Meanwhile, behind the wheels of millions of cars and lorries, drivers are stranded in traffic.
    Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Livsey: I will give way in a moment. I am trying to say something important.
    Drivers are stranded in traffic jams. In London alone, this costs the economy £15 billion a year, and the cost to the environment and people's health is also enormous. My party believes that the Government must plan now for the future, for much more investment in public transport.
    Mr. Bowis: I agree that it is important to invest in public transport and rail transport in particular, not least in the capital city. However, can the hon. Gentleman tell me which major rail schemes were started and implemented during the period when his party was in cahoots with the then Labour Government? That is the period that he has condemned as having seen no investment whatever.
    Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is referring to only two years in that period, and the question is irrelevant in the context of the debate.
    I understand that this afternoon British Rail will seek a High Court injunction to outlaw Wednesday's planned 24-hour strike by the National Union of Railwaymen on the ground that the union did not properly conduct its strike ballot. The ballot of 70,000 rail workers turned on the rejected 7 per cent. pay offer and the abolition of national pay bargaining. The NUR will argue that it acted entirely within the law. With inflation running at 8 per cent., the loss of national pay bargaining is an important issue. The case for arbitration is extremely strong.
    Last Friday, Mr. Paul Watkinson, British Rail's director of employee relations, said that BR had received information that several hundred of its employees had not had the opportunity to vote in the ballot. That is a claim that requires close examination. There is considerable frustration among British Rail staff, and that is understandable when so many trains are overcrowded. I believe that wiser counsels should resolve the dispute.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Whatever one's views on the merits of the strike, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the action of the British Rail management, in intervening in such a way at such a sensitive time during the course of negotiations, was crass and wholly inept?
    Mr. Livsey: I agree that its actions were extremely inept and not an example of good personal management. If it was serious about finding a constructive resolution of the dispute, it would not have behaved in such a way.
    There is misery for commuters. Our motorways are jammed because of lack of investment in the railway system. It is not surprising that the motorways are overcrowded, because the number of cars on our roads has doubled in the past 12 years. An additional 2 million cars per annum are being sold and driven on British roads and as a result the environment is deteriorating rapidly. Indeed, the countryside has been laid to waste and there is increased air pollution. I understand that delays in the south-east alone cost about £15 billion.
    Mr. Gerrard Neale: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why considerable disdain has been shown for his party over the past few days is that people such as himself say one thing when it comes to investment in infrastructure and then vote in exactly the opposite way when it comes to activating decisions? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his late colleague, David Penhaligon, fought tooth and nail to get the road system improved in the west country on a scheme backed by the Government? There was total support for his campaign in Cornwall, as well as support from David Penhaligon's colleagues—candidates and Members alike—but when the issue was brought before us in the Chamber and we were asked to support the scheme, two of his hon. Friends voted against it—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
    Mr. Livsey: I accept that the late Member for Truro, Mr. David Penhaligon, campaigned for an improved road system in the west country. I listened to his speeches and I supported him when the issue came to a vote, as did many of my colleagues. It was a good scheme, which led to better access to the west country. That is why I supported it.
    This Government, previous Governments and planners have demonstrated over many years a lamentable lack of vision and an inability to diagnose what is happening in the movement of people and goods. Things were done rather better during the previous century. No significant new railway lines have been built during the 20th century.
    Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Livsey: No, not now. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I have given way too often already.
    We are now entering a new era of investment in our infrastructure, including transport. I have no doubt that the lack of infrastructure will be the biggest internal problem facing Britain over the next 10 years. The decisions taken now will be absolutely crucial.
    Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has stated that the number of cars has doubled over the past 12 years. Does he believe that that has happened because the economy has been prosperous? He also said that we are building fewer railway lines than the Victorians. Does he believe that the invention of the internal combustion engine has had anything to do with that?
    Mr. Livsey: I am certain that the invention of the internal combustion engine has everything to do with that.

    37
    However, many people are turning to private transport because of the inadequacies of public transport. They are forced to get into their cars because the public transport system is unable to provide a proper, efficient or effective alternative.
    The choices in transport confronting us at the moment should be incorporated in the provision of an integrated transport system which would combine rail, road, air and sea transport. We should be planning for a grand design which will link the regions of this country with each other and with the continent. We should cut congestion and pollution.
    We need environmentally friendly investment, which means that we must invest more in rail than we are doing at the moment. The statistics show that, of the investment in road and rail, only a quarter goes to rail. I challenge the Minister to give us a commitment today that he will raise the level of rail investment to at least the same level as that on roads.
    When we consider infrastructure, we must also consider the integrated approach. Any new road or rail investment should be subjected to an environmental audit. Cost-benefit analysis and the social implications of investment should also be taken into account for both road and rail investment. We should invoke a major 10-year infrastructure programme which should set priorities for roads and rail. The Government have proposed a scheme for a further 900 miles of road investment. Some of that is necessary. However, as we look towards the year 2000, such investment on the roads should be set against similar criteria for investment in rail.
    The Government and the Department of Transport are undoubtedly too road-orientated when it comes to transport investment.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Livsey: No, I will not give way now.
    Was the £12 billion road investment announced by the Government approximately three weeks ago compared with the possibility of investing that sum in improvements in rail infrastructure? Was that investment appraisal made?
    The provision of an additional 900 miles of roads will mean the loss of 25 acres of land for every mile of motorway. That will mean a massive loss of our countryside in certain parts of the country.
    Mr. Redwood: Is it right that the original intention of this debate on transport was to encourage stronger links to Europe in the light of the federal manifesto of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, and particularly to strengthen the links between the borders of Scotland and central Italy in the light of the election campaign by the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)? Is it true that he is now concentrating on national issues because we saw what happened both to the federal manifesto here in England and to his right hon. Friend in Italy?
    Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I shall refer to 1992 and to the European Community in the latter part of my speech.
    Rail is far too low on the list of priorities in respect of new track, rolling stock and staffing. There is no objection in principle—certainly not from us—to private investment
    38
    in track and to obtaining private finance for our infrastructure if it cannot be obtained from the Treasury. The wrong investment criteria are being used for British Rail. The one-off, return-on-capital criterion of 7 per cent. needs to be questioned.
    Mr. Peter Snape: Perhaps it will assist the hon. Gentleman if I mention that that figure has been increased from 7 per cent. to 8 per cent.?
    Mr. Livsey: About a month ago, I participated in a debate in which I said there was a danger that the figure would increase to 9 per cent. Perhaps that debate served at least to reduce the increased figure by 1 per cent.
    The calculation must take into account a cost-benefit analysis, which is done as a matter of course on the continent; France uses cost-benefit analysis for its rail system. All main lines should be electrified, yet by the current investment criteria they cannot show the return demanded by the Treasury. Through services must be provided to the Channel tunnel and to such formidable places as Italy. There must be direct links between all regions and countries.
    We are living through an era of immense change— —
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Livsey: Just because the hon. Gentleman is green with envy.
    The United Kingdom will one day be plugged into Moscow, Istanbul, Madrid and Rome by thousands and thousands of miles of rail. That involves a wholly new dimension and requires fresh thinking. As I said in the previous debate, I should like to see a London rail bypass running alongside the M25— —
    Mr. Soames: So would I!
    Mr. Livsey: —so that commuters who are stuck in their cars in the constituency of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will be frustrated to see high-speed trains overtaking them at twice or three times their speed of progress. That would provide a very worthwhile contrast.
    The imposition of high fares to fatten up British Rail for privatisation is deplorable. British Rail fares are already the highest in Europe, and are almost double those of SNCF. Clearly, more freight needs to be moved from road to rail and there is a case to be made for repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to allow public investment in some schemes. The priorities must be new rail links for commuters, main line electrification, and direct links with the Channel tunnel.
    There must also be direct links between the major London termini, especially from Paddington to King's Cross and to Waterloo, and better use made of the west London line. Links to the Channel tunnel bypassing London via Gatwick and Heathrow are also needed. Roads should be evaluated on the basis of better criteria, and there should be disincentives for people to use cars in cities. My country of Wales has little transport infrastructure and considerable investment is needed, particularly in the electrification of the north and south Wales railway lines.
    In 1992 we shall join a single European market of 270 million people on mainland Europe, and we shall have tremendous problems providing transport to and from the Continent. At present, 50 million passengers and 40 million tonnes of freight travel from Britain to the

    39
    continent each year. We need an integrated transport system, and cheaper and more efficient public transport to attract people away from the roads. We need better pay for railway staff, and an immediate settlement of the current disputes. We must create an awareness of bottlenecks, and we need better promotion of the importance of public transport. We need public and private investment in our infrastructure, and an independent assessment and forecast of traffic growth. The woeful inadequacy of such forecasts in the past is the cause of many of our current problems.
    Mr. David Martin rose— —
    Mr. Livsey: I will not give way: I am about to finish.
    We need more investment in the railways: I challenge the Minister to come up with at least a doubling of current investment. The Government must face up to the transport crisis that confronts us. When, in the near future, people are decanted from the Channel tunnel into London, I believe that an already clogged city will come to a complete standstill.
    4.41 pm
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
    "congratulates the Government on the record levels of capital investment in all forms of transport infrastructure since 1979 while at the same time reducing the burden on the taxpayer; welcomes their plans to increase this investment further over coming years with both public and private money to meet the forecast growth in demand which is the result of the economic success of this country under the Conservative Government; welcomes the Government's success in creating the conditions in which the private sector could both finance and build the Channel Tunnel; congratulates the Government on its determination that the whole of the United Kingdom shall share in its benefits; applauds the high priority that they give to all matters of safety on transport; and welcomes their recognition of the importance of environmental conditions in transport policy."
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on his courage in coming to the House today. It is brave indeed to appear on the day after what was described by his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) as "a blinking awful result".
    I was delighted to learn that today's debate was to be about investment in transport—delighted, but slightly puzzled. It is usual on Opposition days for the Opposition to pick a subject on which they can point to their own strength and find something that is embarrassing to the Government. The subject of transport investment, however, does not fall into that category by any stretch of the imagination.
    I do not want to pretend that everything in the transport garden is lovely; it is not. We have plenty of problems to contend with. There is the perennial problem of maintaining and improving safety standards. There is the threat posed to air transport by international terrorism. There is the problem of congestion on Europe's air lanes, on our key motorways and in our city centres. There is the problem of catering for rapidly growing demand for transport while respecting our environment. All those are real problems, and the solutions are not easy.
    40
    The level of investment, however, is not a problem. There is no question of investment in any form of transport, public or private, being inadequate.
    Mr. Neale: Can my hon. Friend confirm that he is astonished—his astonishment is reflected on the Conservative Benches—that, having seen the massive exodus from the Social and Liberal Democrats to the Green party in the elections over the past few days, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) did not once mention environmental considerations? Will he also confirm that, whenever a new scheme is launched, the Government take major steps to ensure that the environment is catered for—in terms of tree cover, for instance?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I intend to make a number of references to the environment, because it is very much at the forefront of our thinking on transport.
    The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor asked me to say something about investment levels. Let me start by giving some of the bald facts. Since 1979 the Department of Transport has completed 264 road schemes, adding 900 miles to the national network. Last year, our expenditure on motorways and trunk roads totalled more than £1 billion. This year we have a budget of £1·3 billion, which represents a real increase of more than 60 per cent. since 1978–79—in other words, a quantum leap in investment since the hon. Gentleman's party last participated in government at the time of the notorious Lib-Lab pact.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister has presented the figures for real investment in roads over the past decade as an increase of 60 per cent. Will he give the comparable figures relating to a real increase in rail investment?
    Mr. Portillo: I shall come to them in due course, and they will be just as uncomfortable for the hon. Gentleman.
    The road investment figures take no account of the further increase in investment foreshadowed in our White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", which has proposed more than doubling the roads programme; nor do they take account of our investment in maintenance—making good the backlog of neglect that we inherited—of local authority investment in local road schemes, or of the growing role of the private sector. It simply is not possible to sustain the argument that road investment is being neglected.
    The dramatic increase in road investment has been accompanied by increases in other investment. For example, British Rail has invested £2·5 billion over the past five years, and 31 major schemes have been approved since 1983. It plans to spend more than £3·7 billion over the next five years. It is in the middle of the biggest renewal programme since the transfer from steam to diesel, and investment is at the highest level in real terms since 1962 —well above the levels of the late 1970s.
    Mr. Redwood: Drawing on his experience of the pressures affecting the choice of the new Kent rail link for the Channel tunnel, can my hon. Friend confirm or deny the Liberal suggestion that planning new railway lines across country or near houses is environmentally easy, whereas planning new roads is environmentally difficult? Has he received any submissions from the Liberal party nominating routes across green fields or near people's houses for new railway lines?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made a good point. As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, it passed through my mind that it would be interesting to look at the manifesto commitments of all the SLD candidates in Kent for the county elections. I suspect that we should find that they are not quite so strongly in favour of new railway lines as they would claim when there is a specific proposal before the country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the Minister leaves the subject of relative investment in rail and roads, will he confirm that, although there has been substantial investment in the road network, there has been a real decrease in investment in the rail network since 1979? Why is that, and why will the Government not ensure the investment of a similar amount in the rail network?
    Mr. Portillo: I have already made it clear that we are now investing more than was invested in the late 1970s. There is an upward trend from year to year, and the amounts already earmarked for the years ahead are higher still. The current level of investment in the railways has not been seen since the early 1960s, and certainly far surpasses any amount invested in the late 1970s.
    Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend will know that I always take a fair and objective stance on these matters. Can he confirm that the figure that he gave for the proposed level of investment for British Rail, over the next five years—sanctioned by the Government, although British Rail will be spending its own money—is about the same as the figure for West Germany's investment this year?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not have the figure for West Germany. Perhaps I can address that point when I wind up the debate, as I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct. Certainly our current investment levels are historically extremely high. I have said that they are the highest since the early 1960s, and, as my hon. Friend will know better than anyone else, the rail network at that time was very much larger than it is today. Even the same amount, spread around a smaller system, would today imply a much higher level of investment.
    This year, £300 million is being invested in London Underground, which is double the level under the last year of GLC control. There is also investment in the Channel tunnel. Moreover, there is a host of schemes for light rail transit systems up and down the country, to which I shall refer in due course. I do not see how any of that can be represented as under-investment in our infrastructure.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend be very wary, though, of the suggestion by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the west London line should be used increasingly for Channel tunnel freight? Many people in south London will note that that is SLD policy. They would much rather that the freight that is destined for the north-west and elsewhere should go on the Reading line and bypass London altogether.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will no doubt want to point out to his constituents that that is SLD policy. In due course, the Government will see what proposals British Rail makes for its services direct from the regions to the continent.
    There is no under-investment, either, in airports. Heathrow has acquired a fourth terminal. Stansted is
    42
    being developed as London's third airport. New terminal capacity is being added at Birmingham and Manchester airports. The Civil Aviation Authority has a major investment programme to increase air traffic control capacity. There is no shortage of new investment in our ports. Bus operators have also been investing heavily— witness the rapid growth in the total size of their fleets.
    Wherever we look, there is no shortage of investment in transport. It is buoyant. The charge of under-investment today is plain silly. Furthermore, in the hand of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, the charge is a boomerang because we are recovering from years of under-investment when the Liberals and the International Monetary Fund shared power with Labour.
    However, it is not just the total level of investment that matters: it is also the way in which the money is spent. Our aim is perfectly simple. We want to do all that we can to accommodate the rapidly growing demand for transport —safely, efficiently and with proper respect for the environment.
    Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend not agree that our ports are very badly treated by the Government? Light dues are still imposed on them. None of our continental competitors has to pay light clues. It would be far better if we could compete freely with Europe. We could do so if light dues were abolished.
    Mr. Portillo: I am sure that we should all welcome free competition, but it is a moot point whether we should ask taxpayers to bear charges that really ought to fall on those who make use of the services or whether we should try to persuade our continental partners to come into line with us. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the greatest gift that the Government have given to our ports industry —the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. That will help our ports industry to be competitive.
    There are other approaches to transport policy. The Green party, for example, clearly takes the view I hat environmental considerations must lead us to a shrinking economy, with less for everyone, rather than an expanding economy. The car, the lorry and the plane must go and Britain must become dependent on transport by rail and inland waterway. Even judged on its own terms, the Green party's policy is not very sensible. Anyone who imagines that the construction of a new railway line can be achieved with zero impact on the environment should speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) or to any of my hon. Friends with constituencies in Kent. They will quickly put him right about that.
    To forgo investment in new infrastructure, with resulting increased congestion, is not an environmentally sensible policy. On our roads, slow-moving, stop-start traffic generates more pollution than free-flowing traffic. If we asked those who suffer from traffic jams day and night outside their homes whether we should close our minds to relieving their plight by building new roads, of course they would say that we should not do so. As I have trespassed into this area, perhaps I should say that the recent European Community decision on vehicle emissions shows that we are determined to reduce the damage to ourselves from vehicle fumes.
    It is against that background that I intend to give some practical examples of investment in transport and to explain how they have helped to improve the quality of life. We have targeted expenditure on road schemes that

    43
    bring the maximum benefit to both road users and the local community. In particular, we have concentrated on plugging gaps in the existing motorway network and on schemes to take traffic around built-up areas. These range in scale from short stretches of bypass around small towns and villages to major orbital motorways round London and Manchester. Across the board, every £1 that we spend on roads now yields £2 in measurable benefits to road users and the local community. That has to be a good investment, judged by any standards.
    One element in the tally of benefits is the improved safety of new roads. In the recent report on road safety in the European Community, the Belgian Institute for Road Safety cited the high quality of Britain's roads as one reason why we have the best safety record of the 12 member states.
    Mr. Livsey: If the Minister can quantify the benefits of investment in roads, surely he should be able to do the same for investment in railways and say what the pound-for-pound benefit would be if the rail system were improved.
    Mr. Portillo: I partly blame myself for this. Over a period, the hon. Gentleman has consistently misunderstood our investment criteria for the railways. I intended to allude to that matter later in my speech. He believes that we apply a commercial rate of return to all investment decisions relating to the railways. That is absolutely untrue. We do not apply a criterion of that sort to investment in the non-profit making and non-commercial sectors, such as the provincial sector. There we are concerned with cost-benefit analysis and with what investment will yield the best results in terms of keeping the railways functional.
    We never consider the possibility of closing the railways down. When we assess investment in provincial railways, we give a benefit over and above what we give to roads. Roads have to pass the cost-benefit test, whereas we assume that the provincial railway service will continue. We are simply trying to find a means by which renewal can be achieved most efficiently. In that respect, the railways have a considerable advantage over road schemes.
    Mr. Snape: I congratulate the Minister on the artful nature of his reply, which covers only a very small proportion of the railway network. Is he unable to tell us whether British Rail has to justify investing its own money in InterCity and freight transport? The hon. Member for Brecon `and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was suggesting that a very different picture would emerge if the same criteria that are applied to roads were to be applied to those two parts of the railways industry.
    Mr. Portillo: Those sections of the railways that are commercial—including rail freight and InterCity—have to meet, for their new investment, a rate of return criterion, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that I have just said that for every £1 that we spend on roads we get a £2 yield. He will recognise that that is a different order of magnitude from the rates of return that I am talking about on the railways. There is no shortage of road schemes that would qualify, using the cost-benefit basis.
    Mr. Snape: The £2 benefit for £1 expenditure includes the saving of motorists' time—which is regarded as more
    44
    important than the saving of time for those who travel on public transport—and also a calculation of the number of road deaths that have been saved as a result of constructing new roads. The problem with the railways is that they do not kill enough passengers to justify expenditure on the same basis as roads.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise that roads and railways are different and that they have to be assessed on different bases. However, we try to make the basis of assessment as similar as we possibly can. I believe that we have achieved our aim. The hon. Gentleman's tasteless remark about deaths on railways and roads does not help us forward with that argument.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am interested in my hon. Friend's argument about orbital or circular routes. Why, after six years, has the Secretary of State thrown into the air the Birmingham north orbital route? Ten million pounds have been spent on engineering investigations and a public inquiry, the report of which has been delayed. Its planning has taken six years. Why has there been this delay when the benefits to be derived from additional roads have been spelt out? When will the Birmingham north orbital route be completed? This is also a cause of concern to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
    Mr. Portillo: I am not convinced that there will be a delay. If there is, I hope that the delay will not be long. The time and effort that have been invested in planning the route will not be wasted. The Birmingham northern relief road, as proposed by the private sector, might easily follow the same route as the one that was proposed at the public inquiry. Although we have received the inspector's report, there is normally a considerable delay before the Department is able to respond to a report. I hope that we can now establish a timetable for the competition for that private sector road to minimise delay and to minimise any nugatory expenditure.
    Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is very generous to allow me to intervene again. He takes great trouble to answer questions and the fact that he is taking so many interventions means that we can have a discussion with him on these important matters.
    I should like to echo the question asked by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape): why are road and rail assessed in different ways? Can my hon. Friend justify one piece of information that his Department has given me? As he knows, I have pursued the criteria employed by his Department in assessing the costs and benefits of road schemes. I was informed that 7 per cent. of the cost of a traffic warden is assessed as allowable to the cost of building and running our road schemes. Where on earth does the other 93 per cent. go? If a traffic warden is not 100 per cent. costed to the roads, how on earth is the other 93 per cent. costed?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is very generous in his opening remarks. As far as possible, we try to make the criteria equivalent between road and rail. It is not possible to make them 100 per cent. equal because they are different. I do not know the answer to his other question, but I shall write to him about the 7 per cent. and the 93 per cent. of the traffic warden. However, I very much doubt

    45
    that the costing of a traffic warden is the critical factor in most investment decisions. I had better make progress if I am not to take up too much of the time of the House.
    Let me give an example of the way in which road investment can be beneficial. Last summer, we completed the Blackwater, Okehampton and Saltash bypasses, and there are plenty of further improvements to the three trunk roads into Cornwall—the A30, the A38 and the A39. That improvement in road communications is vital for the Cornish economy. That would be appreciated by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) if he were in the Chamber. It has also benefited local communities by taking traffic from town centres—making them cleaner, quieter and safer places in which to live, work and shop. In the case of the controversial Okehampton bypass, for instance, the 1,200 trees which had to be felled to make way for the road are being replaced by 100,000 trees—all of them indigenous species—which will restore the valley to its original splendour, making good the damage done over generations.
    There is no doubt in my mind that we must invest in road and rail. There are few cases where one is a direct substitute for the other. It is simply not right for Opposition Members to pretend that there is a realistic prospect of relying on rail transport for the movement of goods and passengers, when over 90 per cent. of passenger transport and 60 per cent. of freight transport is currently carried by road. If we were to assume that, overnight, by some miracle the traffic on our railways doubled, that would remove less than 10 per cent of traffic from our roads. Given that road traffic increased by 6 per cent. over the past 12 months, it would not take long for that additional road capacity to be used up.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister give the House his Department's projections for the maximum capacity of the rail network in terms of its percentage of passenger traffic? He said that it is 10 per cent. at the moment and I accept that. What could it be if more investment were made?
    Mr. Portillo: I suppose that that would depend on what investments were made. Many railway lines are currently very close to capacity, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but, particularly if freight trains were to operate around the clock, there is clearly scope for substantial increases in the amount of freight. Those opportunities will be opened up by the Channel tunnel, and if that comes about it will be interesting to note the attitude of the hon. Gentleman's party.
    Congestion in central London is a key target. It has come about because of an unprecedented reversal in the long term declining trend of commuting to London. The economy in our capital has prospered and London has proved to be still one of the most magnetic cities for international business. Curing congestion is expensive, takes a long time and is disruptive. But the Government have not hesitated to set the necessary work in hand. On London's Underground, major station improvements are under way, many more are planned and the Central line is to be upgraded at a cost of more than £700 million. The central London rail study has recommended further renewals to the present system which would cost about £1·5 billion, and new lines running from east to west and north to south. Consultation with affected interests on the east-west crossrail have begun so that a Bill could be presented to Parliament in November.
    46
    Another welcome symptom of the attractiveness of London to world business is the development of docklands. Its phenomenal expansion qualifies it to be regarded as a city in its own right. It must have the transport links that such a city merits and we are determined to ensure that it is readily accessible by road and rail and by air and water.
    A committee which I chair now co-ordinates the work of the London Docklands development corporation, the London boroughs, the developers, contractors, statutory undertakings, and representatives of local business. We work together with a single purpose to provide the new infrastructure while minimising disruption to traffic, to business or to local communities. Our efforts are presently focused on three objectives: to maintain progress on the Limehouse link and other vital road projects; to improve and to expand the docklands light railway and to see a new Underground line built to docklands and east London.
    The east London rail study is in its final stages and we are expecting the consultants' final report shortly. They will be recommending as the best option for improving rail access from central London to docklands an extension of the Jubilee line via London bridge and the Isle of Dogs and ultimately to Stratford. In central London, the study has established that two alternative routes are technically feasible: an extension of the Jubilee line via Westminster and Waterloo, or a continuation of the existing line from Charing Cross via Ludgate Circus.
    The Government will be considering that report, and further work will be required before decisions can be taken. Approval of the new line and decisions on its alignment and phasing will depend on how it would be financed and in particular on the negotiation of satisfactory contributions from the developers who strand to benefit. Subject to those considerations, the Government would wish to see a Bill for a new line deposited in November. To facilitate preparation of a Bill, I can announce today that London Regional Transport will, without prejudice to final decisions, begin consultations immediately with local authorities and others directly affected by the alignments being examined.
    In case I should be accused of any bias as a London Member, let me add that there are many other city projects up and down the country. The plans for Manchester Metrolink are well advanced. On Friday evening, in the west midlands, I heard more of how the passenger transport executive there is working hard on its proposals for a light rail network centred on Birmingham and the black country. It hopes to obtain powers soon to permit construction of the first line between Snow Hill and Wolverhampton, and I am sure that it will not be long before it is knocking on my door with a proposal for grant towards the new system.
    Mr. Snape: I am anxious that my colleagues from Birmingham should not embark on yet another wasted journey by being turned away by the Minister when they knock on his door. As he has just changed the rules for urban transport, to get the go-ahead for the Midlands Metro it will be necessary to prove its benefit to non-users of the system, which is directly contradictory to the system that appertained until a few weeks ago. Will the Minister assure the House and those who are responsible for planning the Metro that that last-minute change in the rules will not unduly delay that worthwhile project which has been sought for so long?
    Mr. Portillo: I cannot make any comment on a scheme that I have not yet received.
    Mr. Snape: What about the rules?
    Mr. Portillo: This afternoon, I was able to announce to the House that we have taken a further step forward on the south Yorkshire super-tram project, where the aim is to get the new system in place in time for the world student games in 1991. I have decided to make a 50 per cent. grant available now, so that the evaluation of this project can be completed as quickly as possible. If the evaluation confirms the PTEs' initial calculations, and if the financing and other issues are satisfactorily resolved, I see every hope that this project will benefit from our financial assistance. As many hon. Members will be well aware, there are many other light rail projects in the pipeline.
    Mr. Snape: Is that the plan?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will be able to read in Hansard what I have said. I said that there will be a 50 per cent. grant for the feasibility study and that I see every hope that the project will benefit from our financial assistance.
    I now turn to rail freight. The key factor is the Channel tunnel. British Rail's Railfreight business has already substantially improved its performance, of course, but the tunnel is the new factor in the freight transport equation which is causing customers to look again at the rail option.
    Last Friday, my right hon. Friend was in Cleveland to open a new Railfreight depot—a joint venture between British Rail and ICI. From that depot, the tunnel should allow British Rail to offer a direct freight service to destinations such as Paris and Brussels, taking less than 24 hours. A direct rail service like that, straight to the heart of the European Community, will be an enormous boost to business throughout Britain. So let me, yet again, stress that there is no question of the tunnel being a perk for the south-east, with businesses elsewhere ignored. British Rail estimates that 75 per cent. of the freight carried through the tunnel will originate from points beyond London. As far as freight through the Channel tunnel is concerned, the regions are not the tail but the dog, and the dog will wag the tail.
    British Rail is now engaged in detailed consultation on the direct services that it will offer. The British Rail freight network will stand comparison with the best in Europe, and I have no doubt that British Rail will be able to deliver the service that its customers demand. It will publish its plans at the end of the year, as required by law, and I regard that timing as absolutely right.
    The area where there is a clear case for a new line is in Kent, where a high-speed rail link will be needed at some stage to ensure that Britain makes the best possible use of our access to the European railway network. That line will be for passenger traffic, but it will, of course, free capacity on other lines to handle freight. The House will have an opportunity to consider the case for this line and British Rail's detailed proposals in due course. I have no wish to pre-empt that debate, but I think that, even now, it is clear that British Rail's proposals show a willingness to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on protecting the environment—vastly more than is being committed on the other side of the Channel.
    Nor is British Rail neglecting what may appear to be the less glamorous but important provincial sector. As I
    48
    said, the SLD sometimes misunderstands the investment criteria that apply. We certainly do not apply the commercial-rate-of-return rule to investments needed to maintain a subsidised service. As a result, the proof of the pudding being in the eating, it is planned that, by 1991, 82 per cent. of provincial rolling stock will have been renewed over an eight-year period. All the moneys that I have talked about are over and above what our two railways are spending on safety.
    Over a three-year period, London Underground is spending £226 million on safety matters arising from the Fennell report. British Rail has been considering the installation of automatic train protection for some time. Unfortunately, we cannot buy such a system off the peg, but the Government have approved the installation of pilot schemes. If they are successful, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to a national scheme, if a satisfactory scheme emerges.
    Before I leave the subject of railways, let me confirm that the Government are examining how and whether to privatise British Rail, sensibly recognising that decisions on how and whether must be taken together. Our consultant's analysis is progressing well, but that work is not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage for us to reject any options now. All five options set out in speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remain on the table.
    It pains me to say that there is a fundamental dishonesty underlying the policy of the SLD. This motion refers to under-investment today and calls for greater investment tomorrow, yet, as every one of my hon. Friends knows, so often, when any specific road or rail scheme is proposed, the local Liberal or SLD candidate is against it and allies himself with any protest group determined to stop the development. If there are roads, railways or runways unbuilt today that are needed, the SLD is probably much to blame.
    In transport today, there are clear issues. One is whether we follow policies for economic growth, without which heavy public sector investment is impossible. The second is whether, by relying on ever greater subsidies, we pauperise our transport operators, or whether we encourage them to operate more commercially, to attract passengers and so to generate the revenue for new investment. Between those two clear policy approaches, the SLD vacillates and prevaricates. It is now reaping its just rewards at the polls.
    5.13 pm
    Mr. Peter Snape: The concluding paragraph of the Minister's speech, with its ringing phraseology, was about seven days too late. His speech was obviously written with the European elections in mind. It ended with a ringing plea for support at the polling stations. Regrettably, his speech was no more successful a week later than it would have been last Thursday. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the election is over. For all the resounding phrases that we heard, on Thursday evening the electors in this country gave a thumbs down with a vengeance to the Government and, sadly, to some of those who are responsible for the motion.
    I do not want to intrude on the private grief of the SLD. I do not want to be accused either of promoting or attacking the future career and prospects of the the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), but,

    49
    looking at the motion, I find a lot more relevance coming from the SLD or the alliance, or whatever they call themselves in the wake of Thursday evening's drubbing, than in the amendment tabled by the other losers of the election on Thursday night, Her Majesty's Government. If there are two words that sum up our transport industries after a decade of Thatcherism, they are "chaos" and "congestion". They apply to road, rail and air and, to a certain extent, other problems. Regrettably there is not congestion, but there is certainly plenty of chaos in our merchant shipping fleet.
    The air of smug self-congratulation with which the Minister surrounded himself was somewhat unreal. He made great play of what he called the Government's progress in transport over the past decade. He trotted out the usual, largely false, statistics about justification for road building compared with public transport. Opposition Members and, to be fair, one or two more knowledgable Conservative Members will continue to press for fairness in the evaluation of public transport schemes. Not for the first time, we pray in aid the conclusions of the Leitch committee back in 1977, which asked that such schemes be treated in a comparable fashion. It pointed out that there was no real reason why public transport investment should not be treated in exactly the same way as investment in our road network. Nothing that I have heard this afternoon or previously from the Minister shakes my belief that the Leitch committee was right 12 years ago, and it is right now.
    The Minister may have felt that my remark about the number of deaths within the railway industry being considerably less than those on our roads was tasteless. That was the word he used. It is a fact, anyway, and it is also a fact that, when putting forward financial justifications for road schemes, the Department of Transport justifiably and understandably points to the reductions that can be made in the number of deaths and serious injuries. Of course it is impossible to put forward similar savings for the rail network. Thankfully, with a few tragic exceptions, some of which have taken place in recent months, travelling by train in this country is probably the safest mode of transport in the world. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify the number of lives that will be saved by increasing the frequency, reliability or number of services of that mode of transport.
    British Rail should be given at least a notional financial benefit for its success in carrying passengers millions of miles a year in perfect safety. Without such a notional monetary advance being made to BR, dependence on the newly revised investment rules—the 8 per cent. return on capital—means that all too often British Rail does not put schemes forward. Of course, Ministers—not just this one —and their colleagues in the Department say to the House time and again that there are no investment proposals before them. The Minister's predecessor often said that, under this Government, investment proposals were dealt with and agreed faster than under any previous Government.
    We all know that talks take place between the Minister's officials and British Rail's investment committee. It would be a strange world in which British Rail put forward schemes that did not meet the previously laid down criteria of Her Majesty's Government. Life is not like that. If investment schemes were continually put forward and rejected by the Department of Transport because they did not meet those investment criteria, one
    50
    could well imagine, at the start, a few irritated telephone calls between the Department of Transport and British Rail headquarters. Following that, there might be a strongly worded missive saying that something was amiss and that the schemes were being put forward without meeting the laid-down investment criteria. Finally, one can imagine an ascerbic telephone call with the demand that someone be fired for being silly enough to put forward such schemes in the first place when the Minister was unable to accept them because they failed to meet the criteria. We all know, accept and acknowledge that. That is how things work in the modern world.
    The reality is that many of the more marginal schemes—those that approach the laid-down investment criteria —are not put forward because of British Rail's misgivings that a way will be found to reject them and that if they are rejected odium will somehow fall on those who put them forward. That is amply illustrated by the experience, if I may again be parochial, of my own part of the world and of the Birmingham cross-city railway line. It does not run through my constituency, but it covers the west midlands from Redditch to Lichfield. We have been hearing and have read in regional newspapers for the past two years, that the go-ahead for the electrification of the line is anticipated at any moment. Much of the line, such as the central core around Birmingham New street station, is already electrified. In a written answer only last week the Department told me that no such scheme had been formally presented to it. When asked what discussions had taken place about the scheme, the reply was—it has appeared in Hansard and I am paraphrasing it to save time —that unofficial discussions had taken place twice but that the scheme had yet to be formally submitted.
    Those unofficial discussions will presumably take place for as long as the Department likes and while they are taking place the Department will repeat its parrot cry, "No formal investment scheme has been submitted." Like many people in the Birmingham area who are concerned about the scheme, I find such conduct unacceptable. I am sure that that example could be repeated for other schemes across the country. It illustrates the difference between two years of unofficial consultation about a railway electrification scheme that is relatively minor in the financial sense but which is significant to us in the west midlands, and the out-of-the-blue £10 billion White Paper "Roads for Prosperity"—its title is a misnomer to many of us—that was produced from under the Secretary of State's desk, a few days ago, much to the surprise of many of us, and probably to him as well.
    Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to comment on the policy of "bustitution", that revolting word? Will he ask the Minister to deny that British Rail has been asked to find 20 or 30 routes where it might be possible to close railways and to replace them with buses? Will he also ask the Minister to deny that, while that is going on, no investment is being put into the lines by British Rail, which means that those lines are becoming less attractive as the weeks go by?
    Mr. Snape: I would, if I thought that I could ask questions as perceptive as those of the hon. Gentleman. He has asked a relevant and valid series of questions that I am delighted to pass on. We can all guess the reply—that the Government have no intention of demanding that certain lines be put forward for what is meant by that dreadful

    51
    word "bustitution". Of course, there is no such intention because what will happen is that the same unofficial talks that have taken place about cross-city electrification will take place about certain railway lines. Across a desk, or perhaps even over a good lunch at L'amico restaurant down the road or at somewhere expensive—certainly not in a Traveller's Fare restaurant in a provincial station—some highly placed person in the Department of Transport will say to someone from British Rail, "Look here, old chap, what about bustitution?" They will order a round of brandies and once the PR man has got over that, he will be told that although the Minister does not want to say anything formally, "We in the Department feel that there is scope for just that sort of thing for some of the less well used routes."
    As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has just said, while those unofficial discussions and that series of lunches are taking place—costing the taxpayer a great deal of money—there will be no investment of any sort in that line. Indeed, the position might even be worse. Other lines might well see a repeat of the Settle-Carlisle line experience. Although British Rail and the Department will say that no such discussions are taking place, minor adjustments will be made to the timetable to ensure that connections are missed here and there. Early morning trains will be withdrawn because "They're not particularly remunerative, you know" and in no time at all, over yet another lunch, perhaps at Lockets on this occasion if the two participants have become bored with the menu at other restaurants, it will be suggested that the lines are so unprofitable that bustitution may be the only answer because it is not possible to run an economic service on the existing railway line.
    Mr. Peter Fry: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. As I understand it, like the proposer of the motion, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), he is in favour of an integrated transport system, which would seem to imply that investment should be made where it will have the greatest return. If that is the case, does it not make sense to invest in British Rail routes with more passengers instead of concentrating on routes with few passengers?
    Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman seems really pleased with himself. He has sat back with a wonderfully smug look on his face as if saying mentally, "That has put one over the Opposition."
    To a certain extent, the hon. Gentleman is right. The problem about defining the right place for investment is that, like the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have crossed swords on these matters for a good many years, the Government believe that the only place to put money is where the 8 per cent. return is readily achievable. The Opposition believe that investment in public transport, especially in a railway network, brings environmental and energy-saving benefits, as well as the not readily quantifiable benefit of not killing on the roads the number of people that we kill at present. The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that he is obsessed with the contents of his and the Government's wallets rather than with the environmental realities of public transport, which are enormously beneficial in terms of these other not readily quantifiable matters.
    Mr. Anderson: Does my hon. Friend remember the unhappy precedent of this symbiotic relationship between the Department of Transport and British Rail? When the Department of Transport said that it would like InterCity to break even within five years, British Rail rolled over like a lapdog and said, "No, we can do it in three."
    Mr. Snape: British Rail's likeness to a lapdog has been referred to in the House many times before, but my hon. Friend is quite right. It is a matter of pride for the InterCity management that it is now running a profitable railway. To an extent, the management of that sector of the railways known as provincial services feel an understandable pride that they are not losing as much money as they used to and that they are expanding some provincial services in a way that I, and I think the House, regard as entirely creditable.
    Mr. Alan Amos: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but the problem with that success is that railwaymen and women want to share in it. They know that the number of passenger journeys is increasing— —
    Mr. Portillo: Privatise.
    Mr. Snape: The Minister says, "Let us privatise." That is a parrot cry. We have not got round to that yet. His advisers have not yet done their sums. Railwaymen and women must pay today's bills with yesterday's money, without tomorrow's promises coming to reality. Their problem is that they are continually being told how successful the railway network is. It is much more profitable now than it used to be. Then those railwaymen and women say, "We work considerably longer hours than most people." They work considerably longer hours than most people in the House.
    Mr. Amos: That is not true.
    Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true. I do not know the hon. Gentleman particularly well, but he should be careful. If he clocks up some of the hours that I know are clocked up by signalmen and drivers, he is working far too hard and should go and have a lie down.
    Railwaymen and women say, "If we are doing so well, surely we should be allowed to share in the prosperity." Instead, they have been told, "You are taking the 7 per cent." They have been told not to take it or leave it, but that it will be put in their pay packets regardless of the view of their negotiators. They have been told that, before any industrial action, there must be a ballot. They have held a ballot, and a majority—not a massive one, but one larger than that enjoyed by many hon. Members in the popular vote—voted for some sort of industrial action. During supposed last-ditch talks at ACAS only last Saturday, they were told by the same management, which has been boasting of its economic success on running the railway industry, that it would apply for a court injunction to prevent any industrial action next Wednesday.
    Mr. Adley: Would it help if the hon. Gentleman mentioned his interest?
    Mr. Snape: If it is necessary, my declaration of interest has been in the Register of Members' Interests since I was elected to the House. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say when I am at the Dispatch Box that I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. At this

    53
    Box I speak not for the National Union of Railwaymen but for the Labour party—[Interruption.] No, it is not the same thing. Conservative Members constantly and deliberately misinterpret the relationship between the Opposition and the trade union movement.
    I believe that most fair-minded people would think that those who have delivered in terms of economic performance on the railways deserve a better reward than that offered them at present. The feeling among those who work in the railway industry is one of widespread dissatisfaction with the way they are being treated.
    If I might have the attention of the Minister for a moment, I should like to put to him a number of points about the railways. I make no apology for asking him to explain to us once again the reason for the differences in the criteria that he uses to judge the merits of road and rail schemes. Although he attempted partially to answer that point earlier, I ask him to reconsider the recommendations of the Leitch committee in 1977 and, in some subsequent debate, to give us detailed answers as to why the Government have not implemented those recommendations. Before he says that the Labour Government did not either, I should tell him that I asked them to do so at the time. Of course, then the transport team was led by those well-known raving moderates, Messrs. Bill Rodgers and John Horam, who, of course were most highly regarded by the popular press. One of those has since found his rightful home in the Conservative party, by way of the Social Democratic party, and the other has left politics altogether —which is a tragic loss, I must say. I did my best at that time to convince them that the recommendations should be accepted, although they were not.
    Will the Minister look again at the cross-city electrification scheme in Birmingham and tell us if and when a decision is likely to be forthcoming? Perhaps he can jog the elbows of those responsible in his Department for the unofficial talks that are taking place about that scheme.
    The Minister said a few welcome words about the Channel tunnel and how much the Government wanted to see the benefits of that scheme spread throughout the country. I understand that an investment submission is being prepared for a number of passenger trains to be used in connection with cross-Channel services, which must carry some, if not substantial, accommodation for customs and immigration, depending on agreement finally and belatedly being reached about such matters being dealt with on the trains.
    Will there be any leeway in the 8 per cent. investment criterion for those trains, because much will depend, at least initially, on the total number of through services that will be run from the Channel tunnel to provincial cities, such as Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester and into Scotland? Obviously, if that 8 per cent. criterion is to be adhered to rigidly, there will be a reduced number of train sets, because they are obviously sets that cannot be used for any other purpose. Presumably, the fact that they can be used only for that purpose may weigh against them in terms of investment criteria.
    We welcome the fact that the Minister has pointed out the contribution that the Channel tunnel can make, not to transferring existing freight from road to rail—regrettably, at present, there is not much rail freight—but to mopping up some of the projected increase, at least in the next few years, and perhaps making deeper inroads into reducing the number of juggernaut lorries cluttering up the roads in the south of England.
    54
    The Minister will be aware of the falling number of section 8 grants in recent years. Will he look again at the criteria for section 8 grants, especially those referring to lorry-sensitive miles? As I understand the system, if it is possible to show that a number of lorries can be taken away from unsuitable roads—however unsuitable roads are defined—obviously it becomes easier for the applicant to receive a contribution towards the provision of private rail sidings. The problem is that the more motorways and dual carriageways we build and the more road improvements we carry out, the fewer lorry-sensitive route miles there will be. I should have thought that, given the problems of congestion, for example, on the M25 and on some of our other motorways, anything that helps to reduce the number of lorries on those motorways—although I accept the fact that that is why motorways were built in the first place—would be welcome.
    Will the Minister assure us that he will at least look at the rules on section 8 grants to see whether they can be widened, so that the graph of grants for section 8 private sidings starts to turn up again instead of falling away as dramatically as it has in the past few years?
    If we confine our interest to reading the newspapers, we would think that all our roads and motorways are absolutely choked and that the forecasts about road traffic are invariably understated. Of course, in some cases, they are. No one needs reminding of the congestion on the M25. There are those of us, however, in the Opposition who believe that there are better ways of alleviating congestion than spending £10 billion on new motorways or widening existing ones. A transport package would be much more beneficial than the usual behaviour of the Department of Transport, which appears to act more as a Ministry of Transport than as a Department.
    Does the Minister agree that many roads are being built on the basis of traffic forecasts that have been greatly overpitched? For many hours of the day and night it is possible to picnic in comparative safety on the outside lane of the M45 from the M1 to Coventry because there is little traffic. The M18 is another road that was built to motorway standard but, for much of the day and night, appears to be under-utilisied. It was built on the basis of projections that have not yet come to fruition and, in the opinion of many, never will.
    Mr. Portillo: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the case for the Humber bridge was overpitched?
    Mr. Snape: Of course it was, but for a good reason— —
    Mr. Adley: By-elections.
    Mr. Snape: Of course. If the Conservative party is trying to tell us that at no time has it produced figures to back up a political necessity, I do not believe it. The Conservative party should reconsider the problems caused by congestion and tolls. I hope that, now that the Minister has made his political pitch, he will agree that the projections that were made to justify building those roads have frequently not come to fruition.
    There is a twin problem because, by its nature, traffic forecasting is an inexact science. I ask the Minister about the saga of the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham. In the mid-1970s, under the two moderates to whom I have referred, the Department of Transport decided that no motorway was necessary between those two cities. The Department talked, justifiably, about the need to improve

    55
    the existing trunk roads, the A34 and the A41, and to bypass towns and cities such as Banbury and Warwick. The Department costed the exercise and said that it would do all that was necessary to cater for traffic growth in the foreseeable future.
    By the early 1980s, it had been decided that that was all a mistake and that a motorway was needed. Because of the traffic projections, it was decided that a two-lane motorway was needed for much of the road's length. It was then decided that the projections were wrong and that a three-lane motorway was necessary. In a decade we have gone from no motorway to a three-lane motorway.
    Earlier this year, a public inquiry was set up to consider the possibility of setting up a service area on that road. The inquiry sat for some months, and these things do not come cheap. Recently, the inquiry was adjourned because someone in the Department of Transport decided that the traffic projections were 42 per cent. too low.
    This is a saga worthy of the late Mr. Peter Sellers. How does the Department justify such wide fluctuations of opinion between no motorway and a three-lane motorway, the traffic forecasts for which will be exceeded by 42 per cent. by the early 1990s? What kind of computer is used to produce such fluctuating forecasts?
    Mr. Adley: A Peter Snow swingometer.
    Mr. Snape: As the hon. Gentleman says, a fairly slow Peter Snow swingometer—with a vengeance. The Minister will forgive me if I sound somewhat cynical about some of the projections from his Department, given the saga, as yet incomplete, of the M40. Is the public inquiry to be resumed later this year? Will the hon. Gentleman give us accurate projections on road traffic between Oxford and Birmingham?
    Little mention has been made so far of congestion in the air, or on the ground for those waiting to take to the air. The experiences of last summer and the likely experiences of this summer are no cause for the Government to congratulate themselves. I do not suggest that it is all their fault, but some of it certainly is. Patting themselves on the back when would-be travellers spend hours at airports is no way to impress either the House or the electorate. We need greater investment in our air traffic control facilities and greater involvement in Euro-control. It is a pity that it takes at least one and probably two summers of discontent for air travellers before the myth of sovereignty of the air is dissipated. Euro-control is largely nominal. In addition, there are 42 centres and 22 different control systems in Europe. This makes no sense, and certainly will not make any sense this summer, for those who are sitting in extremely overcrowded airports.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman and I have taken an interest in this matter and, in fact, visited Gatwick together to discuss air traffic control, among other matters. He should be gracious enough to acknowledge that the Government have taken the lead during their presidency to persuade the EEC to broaden the scope of Euro-control. There is a good reason for that—the United Kingdom has more to gain from the liberalisation of air services in Europe and the streamlining of air traffic control than any other country, because we have about 20 airlines that provide international services. We are taking the lead in Europe.
    56
    I should like the Government to speed up their programme of investment. Expenditure of £600 million in air traffic control sounds like a lot of money, but it is peanuts compared with investment in roads and rail. Failure to make that investment will result in Charles de Gaulle airport becoming a main European hub from which one can travel to London in about two and a half hours. To preserve our lead in civil aviation, we must do more to improve the capacity of our airports in the south-east.
    Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Three speeches have been made in an hour and a half and, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), we have had virtually a miniature speech from him. Some of us have been waiting to make our contribution. There is little time for Back Benchers to speak in the debate, so I ask for your protection.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I think that the hon. Member is asking me to make an appeal for shorter speeches so that as many hon. Members as possible can contribute. I gladly accede to that request.
    Mr. Snape: I gladly accede to it, too. I apologise if we have all been deprived of the doubtless wise words of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). Perhaps I allowed myself to be led astray by the number of interventions during my speech.
    I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. I wish that we could get away from the idea that we have to take the lead over the rest of Europe. That justifiably irritates people. The thought of the Prime Minister appearing through the door of any conference centre brandishing her handbag and threatening to take the lead would be an instant turn-off in many EEC countries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, whoever takes the lead, the present system is unacceptable. As he rightly said, £600 million sounds like a great deal of money, but it is peanuts compared with the amount required to do something about the ever-mounting delays and congestion in European air travel.
    Bearing in mind your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall not produce the statistics to refute some of the Minister's boasts about the level of investment in railways since the Government took office in 1979. It is true that investment for the current year is fairly high, as it was last year, but the early years of the present Administration mark some of the lowest levels of investment within the railway industry for 20 years or so. If one takes the global figure, the public service obligation and investment, the Government are still a long way behind their predecessors. Current expenditure is a fraction of that spent on the railway network throughout Europe. In relation to the more developed countries of the EC, we are eighth out of eight in terms of the proportion of GDP which is spent on railways, which is no cause for self-congratulation.
    Our transport system suffers from chaos and congestion, and the sooner the Government lose their air of smug self-satisfaction, which has been typified by the Minister, and the sooner they acknowledge that a deep-rooted problem exists which only money can solve, the better.
    5.51 pm
    Mr. Peter Fry: I am most grateful, and I only hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will regard my comments as words of wisdom. I always enjoy listening to his contributions. He is always worth listening to and bullish. I understand why he is so cheerful today. If I were a member of the Labour party and had had his majority at the last two elections, I should be happier than usual today.
    The debate has developed in a disappointing way. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) began by giving a blinkered view. One would always think that the only mode of transport worth considering was railway. The debate so far has centred on road investment versus rail investment, but the argument should be opened up.
    I came to the House as a member of what was loosely called the road lobby, but I consider myself as good a friend of British Rail as of the British Road Federation, because I have come to the well-thought-out conclusion that as the pressure on transport in this country is increasing, and has been increasing for a number of years, it is pointless to have futile arguments about whether we should invest more in road than rail or more in rail than road when we all realise that, particularly in large urban areas, all modes of transport have a contribution to make if we are to ease the pressure on our cities and means of communication. There is little doubt that today's problem will become considerably worse before it gets better, despite the record levels of investment listed by my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon.
    We are suffering not merely from what the Opposition describe as the neglect of investment in transport infrastructure, which has occurred even during this Administration, but from a lack of investment which goes back 15 or 20 years. A major new road project probably takes 15 years from initial concept to completion. One of the problems of today's debate is that, even if someone in the Department of Transport were to bring forward a wonderful plan and persuade the Treasury that it could be implemented, and even if the finance were advanced, it would take many years to tackle the growing congestion and the tremendous problems that we face. That is why I am sad that the debate so far has concentrated on what has gone before rather than on arguments for the future.
    My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have shown determination and flexibility, which were sadly lacking in the Department of Transport for several years. The team at the Department of Transport is determined that there should be extra investment. One aspect that I particularly commend is that, unlike those of other Administrations, the team is prepared to consider virtually any option if it will improve the overall position.
    It is all very well to dismiss spending on roads, but we are told that the number of motor cars is to double by early next century. It is all very well telling people that they should not have a motor car and should travel by public transport, by rail, but once the average person has bought a motor car, he or she will continue to use it and to want to use it because it is the most convenient form of transport. Any Government who fail to recognise that and suggest that people's use of motor cars should be too greatly inhibited will find themselves on the receiving end of public dissatisfaction whenever the next election takes place.
    Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman put a question. I will return it by asking him one. How much money would have to be spent on roads to alleviate the congestion that we see most days in and around our major cities?
    Mr. Fry: We cannot build our way out of trouble. I have just returned from a visit to the United States, where it is now accepted that it is impossible to build enough roads to satisfy the overwhelming demand. That does not mean, however, that we should do nothing but consider what each mode of transport contributes. We might find that it is best to concentrate on light rail, heavy rail underground, British Rail services or using car sharing more than we do at present. We may need some road improvements or even to build new roads. It would be taking a blinkered view to pass today's motion, as though voting more money for the railways would solve the problem.
    As I said earlier, the difficulty arises because the problems are increasing. One interesting aspect of modern travel, particularly travel for work, is how much more complex it is becoming. More and more people travel, not merely in a radial line from outside the city into its centre, but across the city and its suburbs. Yet our public transport systems are nearly all based on radial lines of communication.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that one measure that should be taken is to charge motorists who insist on driving into towns and city centres unnecessarily, and even to charge those who drive in as a matter of course? A leader in today's Evening Standard suggests two methods of doing this in London as the only way of preventing unnecessary congestion from bringing the capital city to a standstill.
    Mr. Fry: It is possible to use a more rigid parking policy to deter the motorist. The number of commuters coming into London by car is a small percentage of the total number of people coming into the city. Many would argue that that percentage comprises essential users, perhaps Members of Parliament who cannot travel home any other way if the House sits late. It is all very well saying that we should make them pay, but most of them, because they are in business, would pass on the cost to someone else and the charges would hit and therefore penalise people at the lowest end of the income scale.
    The problem has been exacerbated recently. Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph states:
    "Between 1983 and 1988 daily rail journeys into London during the morning rush hour.… increased from 380,000 to 460,000 … During 1981–82 there were 498 million journeys completed on London Underground rising to 798 million in 1987–8".
    Increases on this scale have come upon us remarkably quickly, and the decisions needed to deal with them must be made as early as possible because they take so long to implement. The Government, the Secretary of State and the Minister have at least come forward with some imaginative ideas, such as the central London rail study, for which we have been waiting a long time. Even if we agreed all the studies and decided to go ahead with all the projects, the difficulties would continue to multiply.
    The Minister and I had an interesting Adjournment debate a few weeks ago about the contribution that private capital can make to transport infrastructure shortages. We differed, in that he felt that private investment could be encouraged to come in without any sweeteneers from the

    59
    Treasury or the Government. I welcome the Green Paper; I am not entirely sure how the ideas expressed in it will work out in practice, but I remain convinced that many projects, especially road projects, cannot stand on their own without some form of tax relief on the money invested or some sort of payment by way of shadow tolls. I do not especially commend either form of assistance, but something is needed.
    The Government have had the courage to think much more adventurously than their predecessors, but if my hon. Friend discovers, as he undoubtedly and unfortunately will, that the considerable investment now being made is insufficient to deal with the congestion, now and in the future, I hope that he can assure me that the Government will keep an open mind when considering alternatives. I am all in favour of my hon. Friend trying to encourage the private sector to come in, as the Green Paper suggested, but it would be wrong to close off all the alternatives.
    We are on the verge of a tremendous explosion in the movement of people. It is a fundamental responsibility of any Government to safeguard the freedom of that movement, which is one of our basic liberties. It has taken a long time for Governments in this country to give transport and expenditure on it the high degree of attention that it enjoys today. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Minister for recognising the challenges that transport problems pose. Given the extra expenditure that they have already announced, I am confident that they will have the determination to deal with this problem and to bring relief —if not tomorrow, perhaps in a few years—to the people of this country.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked some basic questions about transport policy and outlined the great explosion in transport use that will happen over the next few years. I wonder whether he and other hon. Members are prepared to face the implications of, for instance, making motorists pay the marginal social costs involved in relieving inner-city congestion. The hon. Gentleman also asked why there had been so much concentration in the debate and in the motion on rail, as opposed to road. He said that transport should be seen as a whole. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that hon. Members have concentrated on rail because its potential contribution to our transport system has been consistently devalued over the years. That is why we seek positively to put the case for rail.
    Having heard the Minister's speech I am tempted to ask: if things are so good, why are they so bad? People like me who use public transport in London expect that at least one of the lifts in an Underground station will not work and that, when they change tubes, at least one of the escalators will not work. We expect the honeyed words over the loudspeaker—at least they tell us now why things are wrong—informing us of delays.
    International comparisons provide some indication of the Government's neglect. In an editorial on 19 May, The
    60
    Independent said something that might be labelled Marxist by Conservative Members. Under the heading "Neglected transports of horror" it said:
    "For nearly 10 years, Margaret Thatcher paid scant attention to transport. Nor did she give any Cabinet Minister a long enough term of office at the Department of Transport to master the subject and push through major reforms. Six men, several of them distinctly second-rate, have succeeded one another during a period which has seen a single Prime Minister and two Chancellors of the Exchequer. This was a sign that Mrs. Thatcher regarded transport as a relatively unimportant portfolio, an error to which her own access to special travel facilities, coupled with her well known antipathy to railways, made her especially prone. The nation is suffering for this lack of interest."
    No hon. Member, based on his own experience or on talking to his constituents, can gainsay this lack of interest from on high in transport in this country. Our people travel nowadays. They see the quality of the railways in France and Germany and can compare them with ours. They can compare the glistening newness of the underground in Paris with the squalor and age-old feeling of the Underground in London.
    Comparisons of projected investment over the next few years show that West Germany plans to spend £12 billion on major rail programmes. France plans to spend £1 billion a year until the end of the century. These countries display a far more bullish attitude to their railways, and that is reflected in staff morale and usage by passengers. Spain intends to spend £10 billion; Italy proposes investment of up to £18 billion. Even Holland, a small country, is spending £3 billion. The current investment programme of British Rail is £3·8 billion over five years.
    Britain is virtually at the bottom of the table of European countries when it comes to building urban railways to relieve inner-city congestion. We plan to build only 1·5 km of such rail, in the form of the Bank extension of the Docklands light railway in London. That is the only domestic urban rail project under construction, and it compares with West Germany's 116·1 km, Italy's 79·7, and France's 62·8. The Railway Gazette International year book survey, published in May of this year, showed that the United Kingdom was sandwiched between Finland, with 1·6 km, and Greece, with 0·9. We should be seeking ways of using rail positively to relieve inner-city congestion.
    The schemes for 752 km of urban track have been held up because of the Government's insistence that a large proportion of expenditure must come from the private sector—yet it is clearly not providing enough. High-speed railways can fuel the arteries of the new Europe. We have seen a difference of attitude among our European partners in this respect. Rail can also be a major solution to congestion in our inner cities.
    I accept that the Government have, in principle, welcomed the central London rail study. I have no doubt that the Minister and his colleagues are seeking additional cash for LRT and British Rail from the Treasury, but, in response to the study, which was published in January, the Treasury has yet to provide additional sums on a scale remotely comparable with what is available for roads.
    All in all, the comparisons speak badly for the attitude to rail in this country. Vision is lacking, at a time when our constituents can see increasing squalor in the rail network. The Government's narrow theme is that the passenger must pay. That is rather different from the criteria for investment in roads. They seek to maximise property sales, selling assets as part of their major rail policy.

    61
    Environmental and safety considerations have constantly been downgraded. France has certainly shown how high-speed rail can spread growth and investment to the regions and at the same time protect the environment. The result of the Government's policy has been poor staff morale. I invite hon. Members to speak to railwaymen in their constituencies about how they feel about their future. Morale now is very different from what it was under Sir Peter Parker. At that time, ordinary railwaymen felt that at least there was someone fighting their corner—if that is the appropriate word after the European elections. They felt that at least someone was banging the drum for rail.
    The uncertainties that derive from privatisation are another major factor affecting morale. Think tanks were at the margins of government a decade ago, but now they are front centre stage and there is talk about bringing back the Great Western and the LMS. The Government's road and rail investment policies are constantly out of balance. Surely a sensible policy would be for the Government to recognise that, even though the railway system cannot make a contribution on the scale that some of the advocates would like, it is there and a major but under-utilised national asset. It could make a major contribution to regional development and could reduce congestion in the cities.
    We can anticipate regional demand. For example, in my part of the world in south Wales the heads of the valleys road was built at a time when there was little demand for it. However, we are told that there is no prospect of the electrification of the main line from Paddington to south Wales, because the investment criteria cannot be met. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) showed in his example, although the Government put their hand on their heart and say that they had accepted every project put up, only those projects are proposed by British Rail which they know will satisfy the artificially high criteria imposed by Government.
    Government have to take seriously the regional implications of the Channel tunnel. In all their transport policies, they have shown the hallmark that led to their massive defeat in the European elections. They have shown themselves to be out of step with our European partners. They are on their own in a corner in terms of their assessment of the contribution that rail can make to an overall transport policy. They have shown themselves to be environmentally unconscious by failing to understand the contribution that rail can make. One sees in their transport policy, as in their European policy, the personal stamp of the Prime Minister, which proved so disastrous for the Conservatives over the past few days. The Prime Minister never travels by rail and has consistently downgraded the contribution that rail can make. That prevents a serious and sensible policy on rail from being adopted by the Government.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. Robert Adley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I do not disagree with much of what he said. One of the advantages of a transport debate is that it shows the growing consensus—if I am allowed to use that word—not only about the causes but about the need for a solution to many of our transport problems.
    62
    The motion moved by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) would have us believe that severe congestion is caused by inadequate investment in public transport. It is actually caused by increasing prosperity. The hon. Gentleman failed to answer my intervention. There is no point in saying to people who have become prosperous that they cannot have cars because there are enough already. Prosperity has created the congestion and we have to find ways to solve it.
    I agree with hon. Members who have said that better public transport is the only sane solution to the problem of congestion. At one time it seemed that the motor car would sound the death knell of the railways. However, by its very proliferation the car is the cause of the revitalisation of our railway system. We must take that on board. The Government's economic policies have caused congestion but they need not be ashamed of that because they created the prosperity.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been gracious enough to listen to many of my comments about coaches in London. Some of the policies of the Government, such as coach deregulation, have created micro-problems of traffic congestion and pollution in London. That applies especially to commuter coaches which come in and out during rush hours and park all day, often with their engines running and polluting the atmosphere with diesel fumes. We have deprived London's local authorities of the right and duty to designate coach routes. If we had the courage to re-examine some aspects of the deregulation policy, we might be able to deal with small but important parts of the congestion.
    I should like to speak about two points made by my hon. Friend the Minister. The first is about the docklands light railway. Yes, we welcome that railway but no, we do not welcome the thinking that caused the Government to insist that the railway be built so cheaply that it was incompatible with the rest of London Regional Transport and British Rail. In a city such as London it is futile to try to save money by building bits of a railway that do not fit in with the rest of the railway system. I hope that we shall not make that mistake again.
    When the Minister spoke about Snow Hill to Wolverhampton my heart leapt. There used to be a railway line from Snow Hill to Wolverhampton. It was called the Great Western Railway. A few weeks ago I went to look at Wolverhampton low-level station which had just been saved from destruction and is now being revitalised by Wolverhampton council. I shed tears when I thought of the investment in infrastructure that was put into our railways by our forebears and which we have thrown away.
    I make a specific plea to my hon. Friend the Minister, to my hon. Friends and to the Opposition and I hope that the House can unite on it. Because of changing patterns of traffic it may be necessary on occasions to discontinue a rail service. However, there is never a case for destroying the track bed by selling it off, thereby preventing our descendants from reinstating a rail service should condition change. Can we please stop selling off temporarily redundant railway tracks? It was possible to build the docklands light railway only because, by sheer chance, the tracks and land had not been flogged off by British Rail.
    There was the old Great Central railway; and the Somerset and Dorset joint railway line which everybody used to laugh at, which stretches forlornly between the

    63
    great growth areas of Avon in the north and south-east Dorset in the south. Barbara Castle sanctioned the closure of such lines and if she had not done so we would now be able to reinstate our rail services and see more motions on the Order Paper by my hon. Friends congratulating British Rail on reopening services. There was one recently about the reopening of the line between Burton and Leicester, but that service would never have been reinstated if it had not been for the quirk of fate that kept the track bed in existence.
    Mr. Snape: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman about the line that moved him to tears? The track bed between Snow Hill and Wolverhampton was preserved by the former and, sadly, now abolished West Midlands county council. In the county structure plan it had the foresight to envisage that that line would reopen in the 1990s—as indeed it will, albeit as a metro line.
    Mr. Adley: Perhaps that local authority would like to move down to Dorset to give a few lessons to Dorset county council, which believes that transport means roads. The rail infrastructure in and around my constituency were destroyed in the 1960s by the Labour Government. I am not being partisan. One could weep at the opportunities lost then.
    There have been references to the European election, if it was an election—a non-election to a non-Parliament.
    Mr. Snape: Did the Tory party lose in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
    Mr. Adley: No, I think that the Conservative candidate in our European constituency increased his share of the vote. That is beside the point.
    The substantial vote for the Green party could not and should not be ignored. It was a quiet message to the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal and Alliance party, or whatever it is called this week. That vote is a clear message to all of us that environmental matters are of growing concern to the British electorate. Transport plays a major part in that environmental concern. In a brief debate, it is not possible to go into all the policies that one would like to see pursued but, in California of all places, the home of private enterprise, the state is legislating to ban the internal combustion engine by early in the next century.
    Surely we in western Europe must recognise that we have to tell the oil companies and the motor car manufacturers that, if we can send men to the moon, we must be able to develop the electric motor vehicle to a non-polluting form of transport, that we must get on with this and not allow the pace to be dictated by those who have a commercial investment and interest in continuing to provide forms of land transport that fill our air with fumes. It must be technically feasible, and sooner or later Parliament must do something about it.
    There is a similar problem about the railways. Electrified railways are clean and they are much the most economical to operate, but they cost a certain amount of money in capital investment. Why do we always have to look longingly across the Channel to see the attitude that our colleagues there take towards public investment in general and in particular towards public investment in their railways? The French provided and built the original
    64
    train grand vitesse—TGV—to Lyons. They thought that it would be 15 years before there was a return on their investment, but that was achieved in six and a half years. We should take a leaf out of their book, and instead of looking for reasons not to invest in our railway system look at the options available to us and the benefits that can flow from bold decisions. If we did, we would go some way towards alleviating the aggravation and concern felt by many of our fellow citizens.
    We have discussed also the vexed question of rail investment versus road investment. My hon. Friend the Minister knows my views on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came here a couple of weeks ago and announced what I can only describe as a roads bonanza. In that beautiful glossy document, among the proposals was a motorway from the Channel tunnel to Southampton. That will be marvellous, except for those who find that the road goes past their front door, but we shall not discuss that aspect of the matter now. However, a railway line already runs between the Channel tunnel and Southampton. A tiny piece of it on the stretch between Ashford and Hastings is the only part not electrified. It is a few miles long, but British Rail is unable to satisfy the Government and meet their investment criteria so as to link up the entire line to through traffic by putting down a third piece of metal to form an electric railway line. It is grotesque that we have these double standards in assessing road versus rail investment criteria.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) talked about the unofficial meetings that we all know take place between British Rail and the Department of Transport, and the hon. Member for Swansea, East mentioned this too. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will be honest and straightforward. They must stop pretending that every single piece of new investment that British Rail wants to undertake it can undertake. We all know what that means. It is that when the private meetings have taken place, only when British Rail satisfies the Department's officials does it put in a formal proposition. However, dozens of schemes are thrown out informally. Occasionally, a scheme such as the one between Blackpool and Manchester gets thrown out even after it has been put forward by BR. There can be no justification for a short-sighted decision to throw out a scheme that would complete a whole railway system by electrifying one small section.
    The motion refers to the Channel tunnel. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will have read my excellent booklet called "Tunnel Vision". In it, I set out to discuss these problems a year or so ago. Have hon. Members thought about what will happen when the Channel tunnel opens? The result will be the M25 in spades. Who realises that all the rail traffic coming to London from the Channel tunnel will, in the initial years, use Waterloo, but will have to operate on a single track of railway line between Vauxhall and Waterloo? It is not even a double track. Hon. Members should think what that means in terms of congestion and delay. If my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that he has difficulties and troubles now with congestion and delay on the railways, to paraphrase a politician on the other side of the Atlantic, "he ain't seen nuthin' yet", because there will be serious problems.
    Mr. Snape: It was A1 Jolson.
    Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman must not distract me!
    We are desperately short of experiments in public transport. I shall mention one phrase, which may cause the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East to smile. It is slip coaches. In the old days the Great Western Railway experimented with, and then ran extensively for many years, a system of slip coaches. In it, trains slipped a coach off the back of an express, which then came to a halt at a designated station without causing the main train to stop. That was the only way to do it with a steam engine, but now, with electric tracks and light diesel traction, a whole new world would be opened up by an experiment into powered slip coaches. What people want is the opportunity to travel on a through train without having to change. This applies particularly to the Channel tunnel and to people travelling to airports. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ask British Rail how much it would cost to carry out an experiment into powered slip coaches to see whether they could be used as a way to help to alleviate transport problems?
    I shall finish by dealing with railway privatisation. I am afraid that some of my colleagues know more about party politics than public transport. The two make uneasy bedfellows. I am delighted to hear that the confrontation of reality against expectation on the privatisation of the railway has meant that the timetable originally agreed by my reluctant right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for publishing his proposals has now to be delayed. I am prepared to be convinced that somehow we can discover what nobody else in the world has discovered—the way to run a private passenger railway system profitably. There may be reasons why the best railways in the world, in France, West Germany, Switzerland or Italy, are state-controlled and the worst passenger railway system in the world, that of the United States, is owned privately. There may he some hidden message there, which misleads me, and that may be an argument for privatisation.
    I am waiting patiently, and I have an open mind about railway privatisation because, as a Conservative, I am in favour of the principle of privatisation. However, I am not prepared to allow political dogma to dictate my view as to whether we should privatise the railways purely for the sake of privatisation. If my hon. Friend the Minister can convince me that the criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that it will provide a better service for the public—will be achieved, I shall support it. Unless and until he does, I shall not.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a great pleasure to take up the remarks of the train-spotter's friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). That term takes me back to the days when I was the chairman of my school's railway society, and the concept of powered slip coaches had us all extremely excited. I am sure that my hon. Friend has done more than probably anyone else in the House to advance the cause of the railways throughout our land. I am only sorry that in his strictures to my hon. Friend the Minister he was not able to congratulate him on having done the decent thing with the Ribblehead viaduct.
    Mr. Adley: I have done so previously.
    Mr. Howarth: I am sure that my hon. Friend has congratulated my hon. Friend the Minister on other occasions. For the record, I thank the Minister for what I consider to be a sensible and wise decision.
    Mr. Snape: There was no private money.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I think that we are getting used to the idea of private money in the railway system. I think that the privatisation of the railway system will be advantageous when it comes to introducing improved services.
    I agree with the Minister that it is astonishing that the "Salads", or whatever they are called, decided on this topic for debate. They are surely on uncertain ground. Almost invariably, those who call for more investment in roads, bypasses and the infrastructure generally are those who organise residents' action committees to prevent developments from taking place. They tend to speak with forked tongue on matters on which my right hon. and hon. Friends have a good story to tell. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch feels that more could be done for the railways, but the railways have benefited from the £3,000 million that has been invested in them so far, and they will benefit further from the substantial programme that is to be implemented.
    Those of us who use the InterCity services cannot fail to have noticed the vast improvement that has taken place. The services are fast, comfortable and generally punctual. I pay tribute to the friends of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who are responsible for manning our railways for what they have done. I warmly welcome the significant improvement that has been made.
    Mr. Snape: Perhaps the best reward that the hon. Gentleman could give my "friends" is to remove the cloud of uncertainty that is caused by silly privatisation proposals.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows that any change brings in advance of its implementation a degree of uncertainty. If his friends and hon. Friends were to consult those who were employed in nationalised industries and have now been liberated by being brought into the private sector, they would find generally that they are happier in the private sector. They find it more fulfilling and more rewarding than employment within the state sector.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howarth: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) wishes to make a contribution to the debate, and I do not wish to impede him.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be pleased to know, as will the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, that after 25 years the Walsall-to-Hednesford line, which runs substantially through my constituency, has recently been reopened. I pay tribute to Staffordshire county council for using the ratepayers' money to back the project, and I hope that ratepayers will support the line and enable it to become a financially viable service. New lines are being opened, and the railways are increasingly responding to the needs of the passenger. Those responsible for the inter-city services have announced that they are running earlier trains from various parts of the country to enable business men to

    67
    arrive in London by 9 am. We are beginning to see a concentration on the needs of the customer and a willingness to respond to those needs.
    The deregulation of inter-city and local bus services has led to substantial improvements. The inter-city services are fantastic. The coaches are marvellous—they are fast, efficient and pleasant vehicles in which to ride. Minibuses are in profuse supply throughout the country. They offer frequent and comfortable journeys and are a substitute for using the car.
    The Government have tried to grapple with the problems of London's third airport but I do not believe that the solution is entirely adequate. The Civil Aviation Authority's call for another London runway can be answered only by a second runway at Stansted to meet the demand that unquestionably will follow. The nettle had to be grasped in the first place.
    Some of my hon. Friends in neighbouring constituencies are concerned about the Birmingham northern relief road. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced a splendid document setting out new proposals for the road system. It referred to the provision of "New Roads by New Means", including the introduction of private finance. It was only when I arrived back in the House about three weeks ago that I picked up the document and found encompassed within it a letter from my right hon. Friend telling me that the relief road was to be what amounts to the first toll motorway project.
    Initially, I welcomed the concept. I am not opposed in principle to toll motorways. Most of our fellow citizens who travel on the continent are happy to pay the French Exchequer for the benefit of using the French motorway system, but of course, there is a choice. I usually use N roads to avoid contributing to the French Exchequer. When French motorists come to Britain, I do not see why they should enjoy our fine motorway network without making any contribution to our Exchequer. Toll motorways can make a good contribution.
    After five years of deliberation, characterised by the closest consultation between Ministers and the Members of Parliament who represent the affected constituencies, it is distressing that a sudden announcement has had the effect of causing considerable consternation in south Staffordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will see his constituency affected by the Birmingham northern relief road. It will suffer particularly because all the options that have been canvassed go through his patch and will upset one section of his constituents or another.
    The project has been five years in development. As I have said, there has been substantial consultation with Members of Parliament as well as with local authorities and local people. The Department's preferred route, the so-called green route, was accepted with enthusiasm or resignation by the people in the area, there was a public inquiry and we were awaiting the inspector's report, which would have confirmed the go-ahead. It was then that we were told that all bets were off, and it appears that the issue is to be opened up again. There is to be competition, with tenders invited for an unspecified route. Those who sold their houses under planning blight arrangements could well find that their houses will not come within the new route; there is great uncertainty.
    68
    The relief road was widely accepted by my constituents as a necessary development, and the same position was taken by the constituents of my hon. Friends. I have no doubt that the same view was taken by the entire nation. There is no doubt that the part of the M6 which runs through Birmingham is a grossly over-used road. The idea of a diversion was sensible. In my constituency, we can visualise substantial economic benefits deriving from the relief road, and many exciting projects have been put together. For example, the Poplars site—it is owned by Staffordshire county council—has produced a most imaginative scheme in partnership with the private sector. That scheme and others are threatened: everything has been put into the melting pot, and I cannot see what the gain will be.
    If I could see that there was to be a clear gain, I would be in favour of it. However, I doubt whether there will be a gain. Many of the new exciting projects are likely to be put at risk. More especially, the Burntwood western bypass is under threat. Similarly, the Cannock eastern bypass is threatened because, unless the new road goes ahead, that bypass will go nowhere. That would be a lot of public sector investment for nothing.
    At the very least, my hon. Friend the Minister should tell us that he will confirm the Department's preferred route and ensure that, if there is to be competition, it will be competition on the preferred route. He cannot tell us that there will be no delay. The Birmingham northern relief road is not the same as the Dartford-Thurrock route, which has only two points, one at each end of the river. The Birmingham northern relief road has no fewer than four intersections planned in my constituency. Will a private sector developer have four intersections? I suspect that a private sector developer would be unable to afford four intersections and would have only one mid route. Therefore, we are likely to lose out.
    Although my constituents have not expressed this concern yet, they may be concerned that while Londoners have benefited from a great deal of public sector investment in the M25, my constituents may have to pay for the privilege of having a road which elsewhere in the country would have been provided from the public sector.
    I understand that time is short, but I hope that I have been able to endorse much of what my hon. Friend the Minister has done and has plans to do. The Government's record on transport has been first class. There is nothing of which we should be ashamed. Unquestionably, more must be done and the Minister must consider air transport. However, I congratulate him and plead that he will have more consultations with his hon. Friends.
    6.41 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: During this debate news has reached the House that the Hight Court has ruled in favour of the National Union of Railwaymen, and that Wednesday's rail strike will go ahead at the same time as the strike on the London Underground. The fact that London Transport is coming to a standstill is a reflection of the Government's policy on transport in the capital. Commuter chaos on a regular basis is a continuing capital crisis. The Minister appears to believe that the Government should not interfere with that chaos or even be concerned about it. The Minister hardly referred to the fact that there was any problem on the public transport system.

    69
    The Government have that blinkered view because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said, they assert that they are investing enough on transport. Our motion alleges that the Government are so significantly under-investing in public transport that they are condemning the country to an extremely uncomfortable and precarious economic future. When the Minister replies, we would like him to tell us whether he is prepared to consider some of the advice given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who referred to other countries where the evidence was that privatising and pretending that Government could have a hands-off policy was a receipe for a deteriorating transport system.
    It was interesting to note that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) was in favour of privatisation of roads except where it affected his constituency. The Minister alleged that my hon. Friends and I and our party complain if schemes to invest in transport are proposed in our areas or near our constituencies. That is completely untrue. For example, on a consistent basis, my colleagues have campaigned for the Settle-Carlisle railway. My colleagues have also consistently campaigned for the Cambrian coast railway to remain open, and only today my colleagues are heightening their campaign to keep open the Lewes-Uckfield line.
    We must remind the Government that communities comprise people, many of whom do not have private transport. There must be sufficient public transport. That does not mean a service like that which has arisen from deregulating the buses, where the system is fine if someone wants to travel at a peak hour in the morning or afternoon, but no good if someone wants to go off the main route at off-peak hours. There must be sustained investment in a public transport system because that is the only way to deal both with our macro-economic problems and ensure a public service.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I want to help the hon. Gentleman to understand something which he clearly did not understand in my speech. Had it been proposed to us at the outset that the Birmingham northern relief road was to a toll motorway, I would have welcomed it warmly. However, my constituents and I find it difficult to accept, after a public inquiry and five years of agony, that that whole can of worms is to be reopened.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he supports a Government who will land their new ideas for privatised roads somewhere and that somewhere happens to be in his constituency, he cannot really complain about it. If he complains now, I assume that he would complain about something similar happening elsewhere. He cannot expect the rest of the country to put up with something which he would not want in his back yard.
    As a proportion of our national expenditure, expenditure on transport has dropped consistently throughout the 10 years of this Government. It was 4·9 per cent. in 1978–79, 4 per cent. in 1986–87 and it is projected to be 3·7 per cent. in 1990–91. The Government are doing that clearly as a matter of policy. In his announcement today about the extension of the Jubilee line through my constituency, the Minister made it clear that the plan would go ahead provided that the private sector invested
    70
    in it. I am not against private sector investment, but the idea that we can regularly and consistently reduce as a proportion of our national expenditure the amount of Government money spent on public transport and sustain a decent public transport system is not credible.
    Mr. Adley: I cannot allow the travesty of truth which the hon. Gentleman has just espoused to remain on the record. He cannot claim that his party led the campaign for the retention of the Settle-Carlisle line. Will he confirm that the formation of the all-party group to retain the line took place entirely as the result of the efforts of Conservative and Labour Members and that not one member of his party joined that group?
    Mr. Hughes: I did not claim that my party led the campaign. I claimed that my party was involved from the beginning in that campaign with local county councillors and district councillors at both ends of that line on a sustained and regular basis. We have argued the case in this House and outside, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The record shows that we have consistently argued that the Settle-Carlisle line and others should be retained, while for a very long time the Government have prevaricated. We have had to wait months and years for them to make a decision on what was clearly a crucial matter for the environment and the communities concerned.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor also made it clear that one of the reasons why it is important to invest substantially more in public transport than we do now is that in only that way would we have an environmentally acceptable transport policy.
    Private transport cannot increase at its present rate, with all the inevitable consequences for pollution and congestion, let alone mental illness and frustration, without severely harming the personal and the local environment. It is better by far to invest in the national rail network and, in urban areas, in an underground, a rapid transit network and a bus service. In that way, one maximises transport efficiency, especially if the subsidy system is properly regulated, with the consumption of the minimum amount of fuel and maximum travel occurring at the most convenient times. Encouraging and permitting private transport to grow, building roads to meet that demand, and in so doing automatically increasing demand —the M25 is the best example of that—is an unacceptable solution.
    Today's issue of the Financial Times makes it clear how ridiculous are present policies. Writing about London Regional Transport in an article headed
    "Raising fares and hackles on overcrowded Tube",
    Rachel Johnson observes:
    "Here's the good news for Tube travellers. London Underground is tackling its biggest problem—overcrowding —which has now reached dangerous levels … Now for the bad news. London Underground's proposed solution to the problem, outlined to the Commons transport select committee, is to raise fares to such high levels that people are forced off the system."
    Even the Transport Secretary expressed his doubts:
    "'I would have to hear convincing arguments from London Underground before I agreed to pricing people off the Underground'."
    I am glad to know that even the Secretary of State has doubts.
    The reason why our capital will completely clog up is that in a city in which 35 per cent. of commuters use the Underground—which represents a total of 2·6 million

    71
    passengers and a 60 per cent. increase in five years, with a further 30 per cent. increase projected over the next five years—the amount of subsidy and public money being spent on it is being reduced. The new managing director of London Underground seems to think that that is perfectly acceptable:
    "We have to get the best out of our troops",
    he said, justifying less expenditure, adding:
    "McDonald's has shown the way in this. You don't have to have very highly paid and highly educated people to treat the public properly."
    Although one often feels like a McDonald's burger squeezed between two halves of a bun when one goes on the Underground, none the less that is no way to treat the travelling public, be they commuters, visitors from other parts of the country, or tourists from abroad.
    Comparisons with expenditure in other parts of Europe make it obvious that not enough is being spent. Government funds account for 52 per cent. of public transport costs in Paris. The subsidy in Rome is 82 per cent.; London's subsidy is just 30 per cent. and falling.
    The same applies to British Rail, which transports 40 per cent. of London's commuters and which, as with London Underground, has seen a 25 per cent. increase in demand. But has there been increased investment to meet it? No, instead the Government cut investment in British Rail by 25 per cent. over the past seven years, and cuts totalling a further 25 per cent. in the three years 1986–89 were recently announced.
    The Minister carefully avoided quoting figures showing a cut in investment in real terms since 1979, though there has been increased expenditure in cash terms. Given the inflation over which the Government preside, it would be difficult for there not to be an increase in cash terms. Presumably increased expenditure in cash terms will continue as inflation endures.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Not necessarily.
    Mr. Hughes: Not necessarily, as my hon. Friend says —because the Government could continue to cut public expenditure. They always gave the reason for inflation as too much spending from the public purse, yet inflation continues.
    The third option of building urban railways to reduce inner-city congestion is also being ignored. Germany and Italy, for example, have substantially more urban railway track than we do. We are at the bottom of the league, with only Finland and Greece having as little urban railway track as we do. I challenge the Minister to deny that the following figures are wrong.
    Network SouthEast, which is the most overcrowded sector of the British Rail network serving the capital, had its public subsidy reduced from £350 million in 1983 to £165 million in 1988. It is proposed to cut the subsidy to £85 million in 1992. It is unbelievable that, with demand for some provincial services growing by 50 per cent. and for London commuter services by 25 per cent., the Government respond by spending £7 billion on roads and cutting railway investment from £1 billion in 1983 to half a billion in the last financial year.
    Our public transport system problems must be overcome. They include endemic overcrowding, appalling security, and ridiculous safety provisions. In last
    72
    Wednesday's debate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) demonstrated that, if one happens to be large, overweight, disabled, carrying luggage or accompanied by children, it is impossible to make one's way through the new-style safety gates. The situation is so problematical that there are now more staff supervising the gates than there were before they came into existence.
    Massive strategic investment in public transport is required. Only then will we have a safe, cheap, environmentally pleasant and clean public transport system. Without strategic planning, which the Government abolished, it will not work. The transport system has been left to fend for itself, with both London Regional Transport and British Rail left to pay their own way. The Government are willing to announce massive road plans inside or outside the capital, but public money should be spent instead on public transport, to relieve congestion in our capital.
    If the Government believe in improving the environment for the majority of British people living in urban areas, they should invest in public transport. The Minister dare not pretend at the Dispatch Box that the Government have been doing that. They cut public expenditure and have heaped misery on the public.
    When on Wednesday the public complain about the lack of Tube trains and railway services, they will be criticising not those who are on strike but the Government who imposed that chaos as the penalty for lack of investment over many years.
    6.57 pm
    Mr. Portillo: The complete inability of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to understand the difference between subsidy and investment is depressing. Subsidy is a measure of how much money a railway is losing. Fortunately, our railways lose less money year by year. Investment is a measure of how much money goes into renewing the railways' facilities. The highest figure ever reached in real terms between 1974 and 1979 was £546 million. The figure for 1987–88 was £594 million, for 1988–89 it is £629 million, and for the next four years it will be £781 million, £865 million, £928 million and £865 million.
    In contrast, valuable speeches were made by my hon. Friends. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for pointing out the absurdity of telling the public that at this stage in our economy we can allow no more cars on the roads. That would mean the predominantly white middle class which currently owns cars saying, "Enough is enough," and denying aspiration to car ownership to the working class, to blacks, and to the elderly—all of whom are increasingly the new road users.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough expressed doubts about getting private finance under way without subsidy. I do not regard private finance as a substitute for the public sector. We made it clear that there will be no scheme by scheme deductions for successful private sector schemes. We are experimenting with private finance and our minds are not closed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) expressed concern about the Birmingham northern relief road. I can reassure him that the time spent on the public inquiry was not wasted, because the work done will be useful to private sector applicants. We shall establish a short timetable for the

    73
    competition, and we have every reason to believe that the private sector is likely to follow the route already examined. The public inquiry report can be kept on ice, and that route can be used again in the public sector if the private sector scheme does not bring a result.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for making a most interesting speech. I shall, of course, bring his point about powered slip coaches to the attention of British Rail. I feel, however, that it is a bit misleading to consider only the initial cost of the docklands light railway. Immense investment has been put into it since, and it is capable of great expansion.
    I wish to pick up a couple of points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus substitution. British Rail is using taxpayers' money to subsidise transport services when that is merited on social grounds, and it must be right to test the use of that money against the cost of providing equivalent service by road. There has been only one case of bus substitution so far. I have not requested any particular number of such cases, and I point again to the substantial figures for provincial investment.
    As for the cross-city electrification in Birmingham, the rolling stock there is very old. The question is how to replace it. Diesel would be cheaper, but it would be more expensive to maintain and also less reliable, while electric stock, despite its higher capital cost, would provide gains in maintenance and reliability. The sums must be done thoroughly—that is all that we require. I shall be happy to approve the most cost-effective replacement scheme when I receive a submission from British Rail.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also mentioned section 8 grants. He will know that the Freight Transport Association has made a submission recommending an expansion, and I am considering that.
    The Government recognise the problems of transport congestion. We have produced plans for investment in roads and public transport. As a Government, we do not wish away the difficulties—we seek to meet them. In particular, we recognise that no project is without its environmental impact, but many projects are beneficial to the environment overall. That is why we are willing to approve them. Our policy is balanced and determined. Of course, any transport policy faces real problems, but the problem today is certainly not any reluctance on the part of the Government to invest in transport. That is why I invite the House to reject the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House Divided: Ayes 65, Noes 213.

    Division No. 246]

    7.2 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

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

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Dixon, Don

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Beith, A. J.

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fisher, Mark

    Boateng, Paul

    Foster, Derek

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Foulkes, George

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Galloway, George

    Cartwright, John

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Clelland, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Cohen, Harry

    Gordon, Mildred

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Haynes, Frank

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Geraint

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Darling, Alistair

    Hoyle, Doug

    74

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Salmond, Alex

    Livsey, Richard

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McCartney, Ian

    Short, Clare

    McFall, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Snape, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Martlew, Eric

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Maxton, John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Meale, Alan

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Pike, Peter L.

    Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Amess, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Amos, Alan

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gorst, John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Gow, Ian

    Ashby, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Atkins, Robert

    Gregory, Conal

    Atkinson, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Ground, Patrick

    Batiste, Spencer

    Grylls, Michael

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hague, William

    Benyon, W.

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hannam, John

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

    Boswell, Tim

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Harris, David

    Bowis, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hayward, Robert

    Brazier, Julian

    Heddle, John

    Bright, Graham

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Butler, Chris

    Holt, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Irvine, Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Jackson, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Janman, Tim

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Jessel, Toby

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

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Durant, Tony

    Kilfedder, James

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knapman, Roger

    Evennett, David

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fallon, Michael

    Latham, Michael

    Favell, Tony

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lightbown, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Franks, Cecil

    Lord, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Peter

    McCrindle, Robert

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gill, Christopher

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    75

    Maclean, David

    Shersby, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sims, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mans, Keith

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maples, John

    Speed, Keith

    Marlow, Tony

    Speller, Tony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stern, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mellor, David

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Summerson, Hugo

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Moate, Roger

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thorne, Neil

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Tredinnick, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trippier, David

    Mudd, David

    Trotter, Neville

    Neale, Gerrard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neubert, Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Norris, Steve

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Waller, Gary

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Page, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Warren, Kenneth

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Watts, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wells, Bowen

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Whitney, Ray

    Portillo, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Raffan, Keith

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Wilkinson, John

    Redwood, John

    Wilshire, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Riddick, Graham

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wood, Timothy

    Rowe, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    and Mr. Alan Howarth.

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on the record levels of capital investment in all forms of transport infrastructure since 1979 while at the same time reducing the burden on the taxpayer; welcomes their plans to increase this investment further over coming years with both public and private money to meet the forecast growth in demand which is the result of the economic success of this country under the Conservative Government; welcomes the Government's success in creating the conditions in which the private sector could both finance and build the Channel Tunnel; congratulates the Government on its determination that the whole of the United Kingdom shall share in its benefits; applauds the high priority that they give to all matters of safety on transport; and welcomes their recognition of the importance of environmental conditions in transport policy.

Civil Liberties and Bill of Rights
7.14 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the erosion over the last decade of civil liberties; believes that such liberties are increasingly under threat through the abuse of public power; and further believes that the rights of the citizen are required to be protected, as in other democracies, by a Bill of Rights.
This year, Parliament celebrated the third centenary of the passage by the Lords and Commons of the Bill of Rights which ushered in the Glorious Revolution. It was the second Act of the reign of William and Mary. Since that Act was passed, the people of this country have looked to Parliament to secure and enlarge their liberties.
It was not the first attempt to ensure that the executive Government would be subject to the law, for in England that was the main thrust of Magna Carta, but from that Bill of Rights stems the modern development of the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament and the theory that Parliament secures the nation's freedoms.
The House will, I think, acknowledge that that theory has been put to severe test during the past decade. In the eyes of many British people, and of many friendly foreign observers, Parliament seems more the accomplice of an oppressive central Government than a check on overweening power. Liberty is ill in Britain today. A majority Government, elected by a minority of the British people, have contrived to cut down, threaten and abuse institutions and individuals who have dared to raise their voices in dissent or criticism—in local government, in the press, in the broadcasting media, in the universities. In the name of the economy, security or some other reason of state, freedom has come under attack.
The right of public assembly—the means whereby the man in the street has the opportunity to express his dissent has been hedged around in the name of public order. Proposals have been advanced by the Government to curb jury trials. The presumption of innocence and the freedom from self incrimination—in the United States, secured by the first amendment to the constitution—are under attack here. Censorship has been reintroduced, not because, as in wartime, careless talk costs lives but because the Government presume to impose standards of taste on the British public. Freedom to disseminate sexual information and advice, at a time when never more needed, has been put at risk by the infamous provisions of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
While the Government pour forth expensive and tendentious propaganda, they seek to stop up all channels of official information, pursuing—like furies—through the courts civil servants and former public servants who have been scandalised by Government evasions and distortions into revealing what they know of the truth.
It is possible, after 10 years, to stand back a little from the sophistries with which each of these invasions of fundamental rights has been justified and to discern a pattern for some, even for several, of these episodes: the Zircon affair; "Death on the Rock"; the Government's rejection of Lord Windlesham's report on that programme without even having read it; the failure to comply with the Brogan judgment of the European Court of Human Rights condemning Britain's detention policy in Northern Ireland without, apparently, a serious attempt to comply with the ruling.

77
I have tried to approach each of these cases dispassionately and to look at them on their merits, but we have to admit that what we are seeing is a case-by-case compromise of liberty. The Government's amendment to our motion almost admits that. They speak of the balancing of liberty against certain other reasons of state. That is not the thinking one would have anticipated from a Conservative Administration who wrap themselves in the language of liberty. Ronald Dworkin said:
"The essence of liberty is not precise boundaries or mechanical tests but an attitude."
Despite the Government's espousal of economic individualism, there is no sense that in their eyes the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are sacrosanct.
We have come to this pass because the Government have exploited the potential of our constitution to allow the concentration of public power in the hands of the Cabinet. Ministers initiate legislation, exercise their broad administrative discretions, control the flow of official information, determine levels of public expenditure and taxation, and appoint the executive heads of the major public authorities. Even to state the theory is to be reminded that in the past decade, Cabinet government has been supplanted by prime ministerial government to an extent unknown in Britain, even in wartime.
Lloyd George and Winston Churchill had as their closest Cabinet colleagues men of other parties with views and opinions widely different from their own. We now have a Prime Minister who brooks no opposition and who does not seek to maintain within her Cabinet any internal balance of views. She admitted before she took office that such a concept was anathema to her and that she sought to do away with Cabinet debate.
I put it to Conservative Members in particular that we have seen the consequences of that dispersal of internal Cabinet debate. If a Government such as ours is not imbued with a sense of the primacy of individual liberty, the British subject has no constitutional safeguard. The will of the majority in Parliament is absolute, and the minority, never mind the individual, can go hang. That constitutional reality understandably embitters the people of Hong Kong, who have seen this Westminster Parliament strip them of their rights as British subjects. We do not hear the call of our own citizens; let us listen to them before it is too late.
In three major respects, the British people suffer constitutional disadvantage in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in comparison with the citizens of other democratic countries. First, within our constitution there are no institutional checks and balances such as those which flow from the separation of powers in the United States between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Secondly, although the United Kingdom consists of four nations, we suffer from the most centralised system of government among the major nations of the free world. Thirdly, there is not a transcendent law to which British people may have recourse in the courts of the realm when their fundamental rights and freedoms are attacked. Because of that last weakness, I and other hon. Members have from time to time sought to incorporate into the domestic law of this country the provisions of the European convention on human rights.
The Bill which I introduced in December 1983 was subsequently taken up by Lord Broxbourne in another
78
place, and then introduced with minor modification by Sir Edward Gardner in the House in 1987. On all occasions, it enjoyed considerable cross-party support. The Bills were introduced not as partisan measures but as measures seeking to embody a sense of the inadequacy of our unwritten constitution in the face of the attack on our fundamental rights and freedoms—and not purely by the present Administration, because long before the present Government came to office, successful cases had been brought against its predecessors in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In 1987, only 13 Labour Members stayed in the House on a Friday to vote to give the Bill a Second Reading. As a consequence, it failed by six votes to proceed to Committee.
I believe that there is a growing recognition in this country that freedom will be enhanced if the European convention were to be incorporated into our domestic law. That is the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is a policy favoured by distinguished parliamentarians in all political parties.
Mr. David Ashbey: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the argument that incorporation of the European convention would restrict human rights in Britain and not increase them, that it would have a restrictive effect, because it would be placed in legislation and nothing would be allowed to go beyond it so that there could be no increased human rights but only restrictions?
Mr. Maclennan: I find that a puzzling view. The hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, will know that not only is it possible to legislate in addition to the provisions of such a charter to amplify the law, but that in the event of a case not being satisfactorily concluded in the eyes of the appellant, the case can be taken further, to the court at Strasbourg. In a short intervention, the hon. Gentleman could scarcely have time to develop his point, but perhaps during the debate he will explain what appears to most of us to be a paradox.
In my view, the Bill and the policy enjoy the support of eminent parliamentarians who have had experience of operating in difficult security circumstances, such as Mr. Roy Mason—as he then was—in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldrige-Brownhills): The hon. Gentleman will know that I am sympathetic to the drift of his remarks, but given the supremacy of Parliament, what secures the primacy of one piece of legislation over subsequent pieces of legislation?
Mr. Maclennan: The Bill would either have to be entrenched by procedures which the House has not hitherto invoked—I do not wholly rule that out in the light of the developments of our constitution—or it would enjoy the kind of primacy which is enjoyed by the European Communities Act 1972, for example, which successive Governments have considered to be the fundament of the law of our country. It is technically possible to repeal it, and there is no doubt that in that sense it does not impair parliamentary sovereignty, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is extremely improbable that the European Communities Act would be repealed without a test of public opinion, comparable to the referendum which ensured that it would remain on the statute book. If a Bill of Rights is similarly enacted by the House and enjoys that kind of security, most of us will be satisfied.

79
There remain, however, two obstacles to the enactment of such a Bill—the Prime Minister herself and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) the deputy leader of the Labour party. The opposition of the Prime Minister is of a piece with her general belief in the efficacy of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which she has stuffed down many unwilling throats, not least in her notorious Bruges speech.
However, the opposition of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is a little harder to understand, although he has been at pains to seek to explain it in some newspaper articles. Labour's deputy leader appears to acknowledge the attacks on fundamental rights and freedoms that our present constitution allows, and has recommended a constitutional remedy of his own—the reform of the upper House. He talks of some of the difficulties of introducing a Bill of Rights into this place. He will remember the difficulties that were experienced by the Government of 1966 in reforming the upper House, but let that matter lie. He says that the purpose would be to translate the upper House from its current advisory and revising role to that of a body which, in ways not clearly specified, would entrench the freedoms of the British people.
It is clear that what the right hon. Gentleman recommends is insufficient for that purpose, for, as Lord Scarman wrote in The Independent newspaper of 19 June:
"Even if the House of Commons could be persuaded to accept the necessity of a second Chamber's assent, a majority of Members of the same party in both Houses could restore the full menace of elected dictatorship. Let us keep in mind that in a pluralistic society many minorities have no real opportunity of acquiring political power and rely on the law's protection against oppression by the majority."
If the right hon. Gentleman's alternative to a Bill of Rights is unsatisfactory, his opposition to incorporation is less than cogent. He appears to take the view that, because a Bill of Rights is not sufficient for his purposes, it is not necessary. I still share many of the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations for the people of this country and acknowledge that what he calls positive liberties must be secured by specific legislation—including, for example, a freedom of information Bill and greatly improved access to legal aid, so that such protection as the law affords is generally available. We shall not, however, by the adoption of a Bill of Rights secure a reordering of our public expenditure priorities, nor shall we effect the redistribution of power from Whitehall and Westminster to the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Those are not arguments against such a Bill, for the rights that we espouse for our people by treaty, in affirming our membership of the regime of the European convention, are rights that should be enjoyed through application to our own courts and not alone through the tortuous and expensive route to Strasbourg. They are important rights. This matter is of particular relevance at this time when the House has expressed concern about these matters. They include the right to privacy, the right to freedom of religion—perhaps somewhat reassuring to certain of our ethnic minorities—the right to freedom of expression, a right that has been more tested, than, perhaps, any other fundamental right during the tenure of the present Government.
They include also the right to freedom of peaceful assembly—a right which, as I said, was hedged around by
80
the Public Order Act 1986—and the right to freedom of association, guaranteeing the right to belong to trade unions. Again, many people have wondered whether the Government have it in mind to curb that right still further. They include also the right to enjoy those freedoms without discrimination on many grounds—on any grounds—of status.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech to detect any reference to the abuse of trade union power. In passing, he referred to trade union power and suggested that the Conservative Government might be taking too much power from trade unions. The one way in which the Government have enormously extended personal freedom to millions of people was by redressing the abuse of the closed shop. When the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Government, they forced 7·5 million people to belong to trade unions, in many cases against their will. I should have thought that, far from denying freedom to people, we have extended to millions of individuals the freedom either to belong or not to belong to a trade union. Surely that is of great importance to many people.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) would have been even more secure in the pursuit of his objectives if the European convention had been incorporated into our law. The provisions of that law were tested against the closed shop in the British Rail case. It had to be fought all the way to Strasbourg, whereas those who considered themselves to suffer from the closed shop would have had a right in the domestic courts if my proposals had been accepted by the hon. Gentleman's Government.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget also that, when that matter was tested in Strasbourg and those who were aggrieved had to go all the way there, they met the resistance of the Solicitor-General of this Government in advancing a case against them in that court.
Mr. Maclennan: I hesitate to rub salt into the wounds of the hon. Member for Colne Valley when I am endeavouring to enlist his support.
Mr. Riddick: We must get this right. First, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) started his speech by criticising the Conservative Government for taking freedoms from individuals. However, this Government have given back to millions of trade unionists the freedom either to belong or not to belong to a trade union. Secondly, when his party was in government, what did the hon. Gentleman actually do to give individuals that right? He was in the governing party. What did he do about it at the time?
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's first point is a repetition of the point that I have already answered. On his second point, the Government to which I belonged, under the leadership of the Home Secretary, the right hon. Roy Jenkins, as he then was, published a White Paper setting forth the proposals that the provisions that I am seeking to have incorporated be incorporated in the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman's own party's opposition to the case of the three British railwaymen is the answer that he needs to bear in mind.

81
It is important that the Labour party should pay greater attention to support for freedom than it has so far, and not because it is a cure-all. It will not achieve all the objectives that they seek. Neil Ascherson, a journalist who is perceptive and broadly supportive of the Labour party, has put it well. He said:
"By itself a Bill of Rights cannot halt a drift towards authoritarianism and conflicts born of injustice. But it offers a ledge of legal ground on which the injured subject may stand and fight."
That is all that I claim for it, but I claim that it will make a significant difference to the climate in which we live in this country and to the climate of freedom that has been seen to be under threat.
If the Labour party's deputy leader is still seeking to persuade his party that it is better to seek the vindication of those rights in Strasbourg than in Sparkbrook, he cannot be surprised if his point of view seems to some to be perverse. The rights protected by the language of the convention may seem to some to be unduly vague, but the cases that have been dealt with in Strasbourg have covered such precise circumstances as the alleged inhuman treatment of suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland; inadequate safeguarding of personal privacy against telephone tapping by the police; unfair discrimination against British wives of foreign husbands under the immigration rules; alleged inhuman conditions in cases of solitary confinement and segregation; corporal punishment in Scottish schools; ineffective judicial protection for detained mental patients and would-be immigrants; and the dismissal of workers because of the oppressive operation of the closed shop, the case to which I have referred.
They also include the nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding companies without adequate compensation —[Interruption.] No, a Conservative Government were in office then. Such cases also include the denial of equal citizenship rights to British passport holders from East Africa and interference with free expression by the Law Lords in extending the common law offences of contempt of court and blasphemy. Many other important matters of public law have been brought before the Commission.
When the call to incorporate the European convention was first made 15 years ago, some doubt was expressed about the appropriateness of judges being involved in deciding cases which, of their nature, had a substantial political element. The capacity of British judges to act in such cases was never seriously in question, for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had, for many years, fulfilled such a role as the final court of appeal in many Commonwealth countries. That argument was advanced by the Attorney-General the last time this issue was debated in the House—I am glad to see him in his place for this debate—but he must acknowledge that it now seems somewhat dated. In the intervening years we have seen the development by the judiciary, with parliamentary approval, of judicial review of administrative action. Virtually all those cases are of considerable political sensitivity.
We have also seen British judges apply the general provisions of European Community law and find little difficulty in so doing. Indeed, although the European convention has not itself been incorporated into Community law, the European Court of Justice has issued
82
decisions in the light of it. It therefore follows that, indirectly, the European convention is becoming a part of British law, if only in a limited economic sphere.
Although I have not hitherto proposed that a Bill of Rights should be entrenched under our constitution—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—and it is true that its provisions even if incorporated could be rendered null by a simple Act of Parliament, I believe that the political impact of enacting a Bill of Rights would be considerable. Governments would not lightly derogate from its provisions, and the public would be alerted to the potential breach of our freedoms if a Government showed such a purpose.
I recognise that the Prime Minister has argued before now that that is a constitutional matter of the kind that it is right to enact only when there is broad cross-party support. However, notwithstanding her personal view and that of the deputy leader of the Labour party, I believe that such broad cross-party support exists and that it is underpinned by a substantial majority in the country. That is the evidence of opinion polls that have been taken directly on that point.
There is a growing desire for a Bill of Rights in this country. As the matter seems increasingly urgent, I appeal to the Prime Minister to recall the undertaking of the manifesto on which she was first elected, to institute all-party talks. Such a step would go far to give substance to her claim to be concerned for the rights and freedoms of the people. The people of this realm are concerned that they are seeing the erosion of the liberties that they have taken almost for granted, unchecked by this Parliament, which itself is becoming a cipher to be used by an over-mighty Government.
7.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the extension and enhancement of civil liberties over the last decade; believes that the Government has acted fairly to balance the liberties of the individual with the rights of others and of the community as a whole; and considers that these liberties are fully protected by present constitutional arrangements.'.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made his remarks in a serious tone and gave the House a serious speech. He had obviously thought about what he had to say in some depth and made an interesting speech, on which I congratulate him. Although I did not agree with much of it, it provided a useful text for those of us who wish to examine the arguments of those who, I believe mistakenly, feel that there has been some great erosion of liberties recently, especially in the past 10 years of Conservative government.
Apart from religion and family, to me at least, few things are as important as the protection of basic human rights—I am sure that most hon. Members would agree with that—but the country that the hon. Gentleman described bears little resemblance to the one in which I live and which I know. His suggestion that civil liberties have been eroded in the past 10 years seems to be not only incorrect, but the opposite of the truth. I shall try to demonstrate why I believe that, in what I hope will be the same serious vein as that of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.

83
I should begin by saying that this Government and all the Ministers in it are fully committed to ensuring that the citizen of this country knows his or her rights and that those rights are not violated. That does not mean that liberties are or can ever be under the prescription that we favour or that of the hon. Gentleman's Bill of Rights, of which he sketched a brief plan. It does not mean that those liberties can ever be unqualified because any responsible Government must also take account of the rights of society at large and of the conflicts of rights that exist in society. That is fully recognised in the many international human rights treaties to which we are party.
I will take as an example the right of freedom of expression as defined in the European convention on human rights because
"it carries with it duties and responsibilities".
According to the convention, that right may be limited to the extent necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, the protection of morals, and so on. I do not think that anyone seriously disputes that most freedoms must have some limits. I doubt whether there is any disagreement between the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and myself on that. The disagreement is about where the limits should be drawn.
We should also remember—this was largely ignored in the hon. Gentleman's speech although he was teased into making some references to it, thanks to two excellent interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—that political freedom depends to a considerable extent on economic freedom, which is something that Conservative Members hold dear. However much a national constitution may proclaim and purport to guarantee civil rights, those rights will always be limited unless individual citizens have a measure of economic freedom with which they can exercise those rights and within which they can exercise a certain amount of choice.
It is for that reason—not materialism—that the Government have given emphasis to measures which enhance personal freedom—by, for example, returning to people the right not to belong to a trade union. There was precious little freedom at factory gate strike meetings, at picket lines at factory gates or with mass pickets or flying pickets. It is for the same reason that we have given people the opportunity to buy the council house or flat in which they live. Happily, that is now becoming an all-party consensus. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the Education Reform Act 1988 have shifted power away from bureaucracies in the favour of parents, teachers and school governors.
My last point on the necessity to underpin freedom by giving people a measure of improved economic status is that it is no coincidence that the deregulation and freeing of economic life in this country has coincided with increased productivity, lower unemployment, lower taxes and more disposable income in real terms. That bestows freedom, but it also bestows responsibility. That, too, is important.
Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend has missed out one of the most important freedoms that the Government have given us. The reduction of taxation has given individuals the
84
freedom to spend the money for which they have worked hard in the way that they wish rather than the state saying how it should be spent.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend, characteristically, is absolutely right.
Over the years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, Opposition Members have made much of a supposed diminution of freedom of expression, which I know that some of my hon. Friends also feel. Again, that is a charge that does not stand up to close examination. In this Session, for example, the Government's Official Secrets Act has removed a huge category of Government information from the criminal law. It has also raised new obstacles to bringing prosecutions against journalists in those few areas which still remain within the criminal law. The decision to prosecute in those cases rests no longer with the Government, but with the prosecuting authorities. The test for a journalist is not whether disclosure will cause the Government embarrassment, but whether it will cause specific forms of harm to the national interest, and that the journalist knew that it would. Protection of the national interest will always remain, however, the first priority of the Government, as I hope that it will for all parties in the House.
On the theme of liberty of expression, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows the press to challenge specific orders which restrict press reporting. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gave judicial protection to journalists' notebooks. Those are three considerable areas in which we have actually improved and not diminished the freedom of journalists to report. I cannot envisage any way in which those matters could restrict the freedom of the press.
Mr. Michael Stern: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Patten: Indeed I will. Perhaps my hon. Friend feels that we have gone too far.
Mr. Stern: On the contrary, on the question of freedom of expression, does my hon. Friend recall that it was this Government who passed the Education Act 1986, which attempted to guarantee freedom of speech within our universities? Where were the Opposition parties when Professor John Vincent was being beaten up by a mob at Bristol university and when our hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was being forbidden for six months the opportunity to utter a word on every campus in the country?
Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the guarantees of academic freedom are important. I represent a university city. I know that my friend Professor Vincent suffered terribly with those personal attacks, as did his family. That is not the way to conduct free argument.
This Government are committed—as I hope that any Government would be—to the principles which lie behind the idea of open government, but "open government" is an easily turned phrase. The principle is, of course, to make as much information available as possible while preserving the confidentiality that is essential to the effective working of Government. That is, of course, consistent with the principles under which this place works. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their performance in that respect.

85
I will cite a few of the many ways in which the Government have made more official information available in the past 10 years. There has been a considerable increase in public consultation, very much more briefing for the media, and publication of research and evaluation papers—[Interruption.] No, by Ministers. Tape recorders now operate at every briefing that I give at the Home Office, which I believe is a good way to conduct those matters. There is more publication of research and evaluation papers on the effect of policies and more openness about the processes of Government. There have been cameras inside our prisons and police stations, and Departments consult far more and much more widely. Of course, the Select Committees have developed their role in examining expenditure, administration and policy of the main Departments.
Mr. Maclennan: On the subject of Government information and briefings, does the hon. Gentleman not think it significant that at least three major national newspapers and organs of opinion think so little of these as a means of learning the truth about what is going on in the Government that they have declined to participate in the Lobby system?
Mr. Patten: The briefings to which I was referring were the kind where journalists with a proper interest want to talk to a Minister on the record, to a Minister's civil servants or to the press department simply to find out information. In my brief experience of Government, there is much more of that now than there was when I started. It is a good thing that, within proper limits, civil servants talk to the press and explain to the press what they are up to and what the bases of policies are without taking on the role of being Ministerial spokesmen.
I believe, however, that the most significant trend of the past 10 years is the fact that the courts have continued to develop and to refine judicial review to supervise the fairness of administrative decisions. I strongly believe that judicial review is far and away the most effective safeguard against the abuse of power. It is a much more effective safeguard than any Bill of Rights could ever be. That is a theme that I shall now try to develop.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The safeguard used to be the House. I wonder what my hon. Friend would say—I think that this is part of the question before the House—to Lord Hailsham's question about the elective dictatorship: what are the institutional safeguards to ensure the continuance of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? My hon. Friend has not so far addressed that issue, but I hope that he will do so before he concludes.
Mr. Patten: Given the parliamentary supremacy, I suppose that theoretically there can be none. I say "theoretically", but we are greatly helped by judicial review. I believe that my noble Friend Lord Hailsham recognises that. Of course, we have public opinion, which underpins so many of our freedoms in this country.
The right of freedom of expression is not absolute, for it is limited to protect the rights of others. Hence, we have laws about racial incitement, libel and blasphemy, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The legal framework which protects an individual's rights in this country has been shown in rather starker relief recently as a result of the "Satanic Verses" affair. Hon. Members will be aware of the background to
86
the case, with the demonstration towards the end of May in London and with the lamentable violence in Bradford on Saturday. There are, however, some general points which bear repeating and emphasising before the House.
The first is that our commitment to civil liberties encompasses the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of protest, which are three important freedoms. The second is that those freedoms should prevail provided that the criminal law is not broken. That principle underpins those three freedoms, On no account should the freedom to demonstrate be regarded as an opportunity for violent disorder, however passionately held the views of the protesters.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brown-hills (Mr. Shepherd), how does my hon. Friend the Minister view the preservation of those fundamental rights, in the sense that any Government who have a majority in the House can, through that majority, overturn rights that we all accept today as fundamental to our community? They can sweep away those rights purely and simply by means of an elected majority. Are not some rights so fundamental that they should necessarily be over and above that and, if we have a Bill of Rights, should require something like a two-thirds majority to overturn them, as in the United States constitution? We should not, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested, have a temporary Bill of Rights, which would be no rights at all.
Mr. Patten: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has given much thought to the matter, but I believe that this place, reinforced by public opinion and judicial review, is an adequate safeguard. My hon. Friend went very much further in suggesting how a Bill of Rights should be entrenched and made some suggestions which may be useful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who did not tell us how he would entrench his Bill of Rights.
To return to demonstrations, freedom of assembly and freedom of protest, the whole House will continue to understand and sympathise with the anger and hurt of many Moslems over the contents of "The Satanic Verses". At the same time, our message to Moslem community leaders, although a brief one, must be clear: "By all means meet and voice your protest as British citizens, but do not let your message be lost among, or your reputation be sullied by, the violent actions of a disorderly minority. Do not abuse your freedom to demonstrate by encroaching upon the freedom of others to hold a different view or simply to walk down a usually peaceful shopping street on a Saturday afternoon. Try to impress on young hotheads in your community that pictures of policemen lying on the ground being kicked do nothing to advance the Moslem cause or the cause of ever-improving race relations, which are an important part of our national fabric."
Mr. Tony Benn: Everyone understands why the Minister chose to put that passage in his speech. He referred to blasphemy. There is pressure to extend the law and I have presented a Bill which would abolish the offence of blasphemy. I should like a clear assurance that the Minister stands by the Home Secretary's position that there should be no change in the law. Were an attempt made to assuage those anxieties by extending the law of blasphemy, it would raise serious questions. Hon.

87
Members on both sides of the House agree that it would be wrong to extend it. Indeed, it would be impossible, because for a Moslem, the Christian faith is blasphemous, and so on.
Mr. Patten: I certainly stand by what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said. One of the specific points concerning alleged blasphemy is before the courts, according to a reference on the Press Association tapes this evening.
The motion before the House includes the assertion that civil liberties are increasingly under threat from the abuse of public power. People seem to have short memories. It was this Government who this Session put the Security Service on a statutory footing for the first time. This Government have given redress to citizens who consider that they have a grievance against the security services. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act has strengthened the investigatory powers of the police. If, as is intended, this means that the guilty are more likely to be brought to book, that extends liberty—the liberty to be protected from wrongdoers—while the same Act, with its codes of practice, provides for better safeguards for citizens and those who have not been brought to trial and gives us much more certainty about what powers the police have. As a citizen, I welcome that as much, I hope, as any other hon. Member.
If I disagree with the diagnosis of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in his thoughtful speech, I find the medicine that he suggests even more unpalatable. He suggests that citizens would enjoy more rights if civil liberties were enshrined in a Bill of Rights. I think that that sums up his argument. Anyone might think, from the way in which this was proposed, that those rights are not protected unless they are codified and set down in a Bill of Rights. That is not so, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
Those rights are already protected in our common and statute law, although in far more precise terms than is usual in, for example, the European convention on human rights, which most proponents of a Bill of Rights would like to incorporate in our law, and which is couched in much more general terms than much of our statute law. For example, article 6 of the convention specifies in general terms minimum rights for a person charged with a criminal offence but without spelling out details of time limits, cautions, rules of court and police procedures, on which our statute law is increasingly specific, giving greater protection to our citizens.
Arguments for incorporation have been paraded in the national press, although the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in particular has made his opposition clear. I do not often agree with him, and I hope that he will not be alarmed to hear that I agree with some of the things that he has written. He was attacked by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland for being unspecific about the way in which he intended to protect citizens' rights in his scheme. The right hon. Gentleman probably does not need my defence, nor would he welcome it, but I believe that it is unfair for the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to criticise him for not working his ideas out in full when the hon. Gentleman himself did not spell out to the House how he
88
would entrench his Bill of Rights if it ever reached the statute book, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) pointed out.
Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has clearly neither heard nor understood what I said, and I apologise if that is my fault. I said that I was not proposing the entrenchment of a Bill of Rights. I was advocating that as with the Bill of Rights of 1689, which not even this Government would contemplate repealing, it should be a simple statute.
Mr. Patten: I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman has just said and what he said earlier. He has not explained for the understanding of the House why it is worth going through the exercise if some later Government can turn the whole thing on its head.
Mr. Hind: In that case, it is a waste of time.
Mr. Patten: It is a complete waste of time, as my hon. Friend comments from a sedentary position. We need to grasp that nettle if we are to get anywhere with the intellectual underpinning of an argument for a Bill of Rights. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has failed that test.
Incorporating the European convention on human rights would mean that the courts, rather than Parliament, would determine society's needs. That is no reflection on the impartiality of the judiciary. Rather it is a reaffirmation that it is for Parliament, with its sovereignty, to decide. I do not doubt that judges could do the job—of course they could—but I have doubts about what the job would do to the judges. It would politicise them in the public eye. There can be no more powerful exposition of that case than that put forward in the Chamber by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the 1987 debate on the private Member's Bill put forward by our then colleague Sir Edward Gardner.
Several Hon. Members rose— —
Mr. Patten: I have given way a great deal. I am anxious not to take up the time of the House because a number of hon. Members wish to contribute.
Our unwritten constitution has served us well, and there is no evidence that a written constitution or Bill of Rights would help us to do it better. Everything depends on how a constitution, written or unwritten, is interpreted and applied in daily life. That is an acid test.
For some people, of course, liberty has been curtailed. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made threatening statements about the way in which he saw liberty being curtailed. I do not mind the idea that IRA terrorists can travel less easily to and from Great Britain as a result of the powers available to the police, the courts and the Government under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. Those powers are essential for the defence of law-abiding people against terrorism and, alas, they are powers that the Labour party wishes to revoke.
I do not mind that the opportunity for apologists of bombings and shootings to appear on our screens has been curtailed. I do not apologise for the fact that their chances of making propaganda broadcasts have been denied. I certainly do not mind the curtailment of the liberty of a young man to carry a knife in his pocket and the fact that, should he appear in court, the burden of proving why he was carrying that knife now rests with him and not with the prosecution. Those are certainly restrictions on

89
individual liberty, but they are necessary if we are to stop the growth of a knife culture on our streets. I welcomed at the time and I welcome again the support from the Labour Front Bench for that move.
I do not mind that the drug trafficker and the serious criminal know that, when convicted, they may lose not just their liberty but the profits from their crimes, which the courts are now empowered to confiscate. Those curtailments of liberty are extremely important, and few reasonable people would not accept the case for such action.
Ministers and Parliament have a duty to judge the difficult balance between enhancing individual freedom and ensuring proper protection for our nation. All Governments, of whatever colour, will always have that duty. In the past decade, we have looked conscientiously and meticulously at issues of individual freedom. No decision to increase or diminish those powers—I have openly given examples of increasing as well as diminishing powers over individual liberty—has been taken lightly and without clear evidence of need in either direction. Where the protection of the community has needed limited and well-defined reinforcement, we have provided it, and we shall continue to do so. I ask the House to reject the motion.
8.9 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: Quite understandably, the Minister referred to events in Bradford this weekend. He, like the Home Secretary, has exhibited an unfortunate tendency to lecture Moslems as a whole. We should be mindful of the fact that the majority of Moslems are law-abiding and a minority of people were involved in the trouble at the weekend. Before a Minister imputes blame to the Moslems, he should be careful because it may have unfortunate consequences.
The tragedy is that the reason for the Moslems' hurt and offence has gone undiscussed and undebated in the country because of the trouble on which attention has focused. Unless we are willing to understand and discuss the reasons for the hurt and fromence caused to Moslems we shall be a long way off fostering the mutual understanding and respect needed in this country.
Mr. Stern rose— —
Mr. Darling: No, I shall not give way. I merely wanted to make that remark, and I know that many hon. Members want to speak. I now intend to address the motion before the House.
There is no doubt that a statement of rights in this country is necessary and that, under this Government, the need for a framework of rights has assumed a greater importance and urgency. Who would have thought that a British Government, this Government, would have ordered the seizure of the English language editions of Pravda to prevent British people reading about "Spycatcher", when the world already knew all about it?
The Minister said that he did not recognise the country of which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke. Perhaps that is where the trouble lies, and perhaps Conservative Members should reflect today that some of the difficulties may be due to the fact that Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, do not recognise the country which most of us see. The Government are intolerant. They talk of enemies within,
90
and their record on rights is poor. More than 80 British laws have been amended as a result of decisions in the European Court on Human Rights. No wonder that Conservative Members, particularly the Prime Minister, do not like Europe.
The Government's actions are oppressive, as has been shown by their treatment of broadcasting. We saw the spectacle of police being sent to raid the BBC headquarters in Glasgow in the middle of the night. Who would have thought that that would happen in a British city? We saw the Zircon tapes seized as an elaborate blind, when the real reason for the Government not wanting the Secret Society series to be broadcast was because of the sixth programme in the series, entitled "Cabinet Government", which still languishes in the BBC Scotland offices in Glasgow. That programme was about the election campaign of 1983, and the fact that the Government sought to undermine and spy on the citizens of this country. Their object was to prevent the programme from being shown, and the Zircon affair was a blind.
Other examples of the Government's oppression include the GCHQ and Stalker affairs, the judicial process and the Official Secrets Act 1989, which means that there is now no public interest defence. We have recently seen their blatant attempt to nobble the judiciary in the immigration appeal tribunal system, although, happily, that has now been stopped.
The Government have no concept of citizenship in society, something which is despised by the Prime Minister. She says that every person should be a freeholder, with the implication that being a citizen means that someone also has to own property. Far from setting people free in this country, the Government have climbed on to people's backs and withheld information. They attempt to condition the media, and the Gibraltar affair was an example. To this Government, freedom is not a right but is strictly on loan. The Government's actions and ideology are but one reason for the changing mood sweeping the country. What is to be done about it?
The motion invites us to endorse a Bill of Rights, but the Opposition will not support it for two reasons. First, the main problem with a Bill of Rights in this country is due to the nature of the British constitution, which is unwritten. I think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will accept that most countries with a Bill of Rights have a written constitution which can be entrenched, and that there usually is a supreme court to interpret it. In England, there is no such system. Instead, this country's fundamental constitutional doctrine is the supremacy of Parliament, and the fact that no one Parliament can bind its successor. Therefore, it is obvious that a Bill of Rights approved by one Government could be undermined or substantially changed by a subsequent one. The Bill of Rights could not be elevated above other laws and given the status of a super-law.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am very interested in this argument. At the moment, we are signatories to the treaty on the convention of human rights and the courts are increasingly taking note of it. The Government accept the rulings of the European Court, except for the little derogation before Christmas on the Northern Ireland issues, which the Minister thinks is a great advance for liberty. Therefore, have we not enshrined a Bill of Rights by the mechanisms of the treaty?
Mr. Darling: We are a signatory to the treaty, but it is always possible, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brown-hills (Mr. Shepherd) said, for us to get out of it. At the moment, we do not have a system which allows us to enshrine and elevate any legislation or treaty to the status at which it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to completely remove it or so undermine it that it becomes ineffective. It is always open to the Government to legislate themselves out of difficulties with which they may be presented by the courts in this country or elsewhere.
It is a shame that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland did not dwell on the second problem, which involves the contents of a Bill of Rights. There is no doubt that some Governments, particularly this one, would wish to elevate some of their worst political prejudices into constitutional pillars. I doubt that there would be national consensus, and there certainly would not be in the House, about what should be contained in a Bill of Rights.
Difficulties would present themselves when we dealt with the security services, over which there are fundamental differences across the House.
The general problem can be illustrated by the European convention on human rights, to which reference has been made many times this evening. Article 6 states:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
As the Minister said, that is all very fine, but unless there are safeguards—for example, involving the time in which someone can be brought to trial—the system is open to abuse.
The Minister sits and nods in agreement, but he may like to reflect that England has no provision comparable with that in Scotland, which requires someone to be brought to trial within 110 days of him being committed for trial. In England, it is possible for someone to remain locked up without trial for a considerable period. The provision in the European convention is all very well as a statement of principle, but without detail and safeguards, it does not have the value imputed to it.
Article 8 of the European convention states:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right".

That is fine, but where does it leave us with regard to phone tapping and so on? General statements, while welcome and sometimes useful are, by themselves, incomplete. It is necessary to specify to a far greater degree than has been done in the European convention or other countries' Bills of Rights, what those rights are. We do not want to have a system of vague rights which can subsequently be undermined by Government action or which allows the judiciary wide room for maneouvre.
The same problem arises in article 12 of the European convention, which states:
"Men and women of marriagable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right."
That demonstrates the difficulty faced by some citizens in this country. It is true that men and women of marriageable age have a right to marry, but as we know, this Government and others before them have posed great barriers if a British citizen wants to marry, for example, a Pakistani or Indian citizen. In that case, they have to pass the primary purpose rule. They have to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage is not to gain admission
92
to this country by means of their prospective spouse. So an article such as article 12 can be undermined by the way in which the Government choose to interpret it or to legislate their way out of it.
Mr. Hind: How would the hon. Gentleman entrench his Bill of Rights in such a way that it would not be possible for a subsequent Parliament to get round the rights that it contained?
Mr. Darling: I say, in the politest possible way, that the hon. Gentleman has been jumping up and down all evening. If he holds on for a little he will hear what we propose.
As I was saying, article 14 deals with discrimination and is also worded in general terms. I emphasise that general rights have only limited value. It is necessary to specify what these rights are and how we might go about enforcing them. Unless it is clear to the courts what remedy Parliament or a convention is proposing, the rights can be undermined.
We should also bear in mind the fact that, unless this detail is enshrined in statute, the issues will be decided not by Parliament, which is supposed to represent the people, but by judges. Ultimately, the Government can still legislate themselves out of awkward difficulties.
Our approach is different, and, I think, practical. It is designed for early implementation and it does not involve writing a constitution for the country. It is designed to fit into the British constitution as it is. The House will be aware that the Labour party proposes major constitutional reform. The reform we have in mind will provide many of the safeguads which, I am sure, the Social and Liberal Democrats—if they are still around—will support, as will a growing number of Conservative Members— —
Mr. Maclennan: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to entrench these changes?
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I am just about to get to that point.
We propose that the House of Lords be abolished and replaced by a directly elected second Chamber which will have the power to block for one parliamentary term certain Acts enshrining constitutional reforms and fundamental rights, which I shall refer to in a moment. We aim to provide a clearly stated system of defined rights, a system that can be enforced by citizens in their local courts without having to go to London or Europe. We aim to create rights that provide an immediate remedy.
For example, we consider that a freedom of information Act is essential and long overdue. Citizens have a right to know why decisions were made and who made them. We would repeal the Government's official secrets legislation. We shall enshrine a right to reply Act and a right to privacy, not along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), but a right not to be interfered with by the state, providing safeguards against the abuse of power by the state.
We believe that the Data Protection Act 1984 needs to be greatly strengthened. Citizens have a right to know what information is held on them and why, so as to avoid abuses. We also believe that a right to equal treatment, regardless of sex, race, sexuality or disability, is essential.
It is worth observing in passing that the regional and national assemblies which we propose will also provide rights and safeguards and will begin to move the balance

93
of power away from Westminster. This Government have abolished councils. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has acquired 415 new powers, and the Secretary of State for the Environment has acquired 315 new powers over local government finance and 100 over housing. Seventy thousand council officials are being barred from the political process. Patronage has been abused. All this must be stopped, and a system of regional and national assemblies can begin to put it right. Decision-making should be handed back to people so that they can see who is making decisions on their behalf. If they do not like what they see, they can replace an assembly with one more to their liking.
The Minister referred to judicial review, but he must know that it is strictly limited. It cannot examine the law or a regulation; it can merely look into the way in which a decision was reached. It is certainly not the answer to the frequent complaints heard in this Chamber— —
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said would probably find agreement in many parts of the House, but he has still not dealt with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). How would he entrench in his constitutional changes the elements which he regards as so desirable? I find it difficult to imagine that his party will create a constitutional system in which the House of Lords can stop this House legislating in the way in which it has done for many years.
Mr. Darling: We propose that the second Chamber will have the power to delay legislation for a whole parliamentary term— —
Mr. Hind: For one year?
Mr. Darling: No, for the length of a Parliament, which could be up to five years. This would force any Government proposing to diminish any of these rights to go to the country with that specific programme in mind. Thus, we shall be able to safeguard rights and the constitutional settlement which we propose—consisting of regional and national assemblies—so as to stop any Government coming to office and tearing them up. A Government would he forced to go back to the country if they wanted to pursue such a programme.
I fully accept that this will not block repeal for all time —under our constitution that would be impossible—but it provides a new safeguard and, as such, it is greatly to be welcomed.
Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the public will regard this idea with extreme cynicism? A Labour Government could come to power and pass Acts of Parliament, and then claim that those Acts contained certain fundamental rights. If they were subsequently not elected for a further five years, the system would block the party that came to power from changing the legislation. The Labour Government could then wait until returned to power, and begin again. This will sterilise Parliament for five years and block any progress that is not in line with the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
Mr. Darling: Let us take the freedom of information Act as an example. If it incorporated the fundamental right to which I have referred, it would not be possible for a subsequent Government to take away from or seek to
94
repeal the Act until they had gone back to the country to gain a mandate to do so. That is how we seek to entrench rights that we regard as fundamental.
If an incoming Government were confident of their case, it would be open to them to seek a mandate at a subsequent election to put it into action, and we should have to accept that.
Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Once upon a time the Opposition believed in the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Should such a Government come to power again and pass legislation to that effect, is not the hon. Gentleman saying that they would regard such action as fundamental, thereby ensuring not only that they could nationalise everything, but that they could prevent a subsequent Government from denationalising?
Mr. Darting: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. No one is suggesting that every Act passed by a Labour Government would be enshrined in the way I have described. I am talking about a narrow but important range of rights, not about every Bill that would go through the House. The hon. Gentleman must understand the distinction. We shall make it clear in the manifesto on which we fight the next election precisely which rights we propose to enshrine in this way. What I have described does not and could not apply to every piece of legislation that a Government wanted to enact. We propose to provide a framework that will allow remedies that are not possible at present. It is essential to create an open society where freedom is the presumption and where the opportunity of redress is easily available. It is possible to enshrine rights about which there is broad consensus. They should be enshrined in such a way that they cannot easily be overturned by any authoritarian or ruthless Government.
There is no doubt that constitutional change is essential and we propose two planks to such change. First, we propose the reform of the second Chamber in the way that I have described with strong and powerful national assemblies in Scotland and Wales and regional assemblies in England. Side by side with that will be a clear system of fundamental rights. They will be enshrined in such a way that they cannot be overturned with ease. Happily, it will not be long before we see that system in operation.
8.30 pm
Mr. David Martin: It is clear from what we have heard in the debate that, when there are proposals to change our constitutional arrangements, we get into grave difficulties. They are difficulties not only of definition but of carrying into practice a system that could not be entrenched in our system of parliamentary representation and of the Queen in Parliament, which is the ultimate repository of power. We have already heard the sort of bickering that would soon break out not only in the Chamber but in cross-party and inter-party disagreements. That would occur when we tried to define what should be put in place of that which we have, imperfect thought it is.
I listened with fascination to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the hon. Gentleman made a serious contribution. Undoubtedly, he sincerely believes that in the last 10 years we have seen something happening

95
that is very different from what happened before. He believes that there have been compromises with liberty and that the powers of the Cabinet are in some way different. He thinks that the Prime Minister is some kind of dictator, the like of which we have not seen in the House in any generation.
Each of those matters is based on fundamental difficulties faced by the hon. Gentleman. His party has played no serious part in the protection of liberties nor has it had to balance them against the interests of Government. It has not played a serious part in government since the first world war apart from the short period when some members of his party were in the slipstream of the Labour Government during the 1970s. Many of those who were part of that Labour Government would wish to draw a decent veil over their activities, which led directly to the election of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a Conservative Government. That Government were mindful of the trampling of liberties and the seemingly uncheckable and unchecked union activities. The memories of that have played a special part in keeping my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister where she ought to be, in No. 10 Downing street.
Are Cabinet powers any different now from what they were before? Let us look at events this century. Neither Baldwin nor Chamberlain was in any way different from the present Prime Minister in his relations with the Cabinet. Neither Winston Churchill nor Attlee listened any more than any other Prime Minister to fundamental disagreements about the way that Ministers behave or about Cabinet responsibility without expecting a resignation or, as on one famous occasion, suggesting that a period of silence would be beneficial.
Eden had a somewhat weak Government who were short-lived. Macmillan's Cabinet provided an object lesson in dissent because although there were no public disagreements, there were clearly disagreements between Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister—"little local difficulties" in 1958, when all Macmillan's Treasury Ministers resigned. The Prime Minister of the day went to the country a year later and won a majority of 100. It could be argued that Macmillan's Cabinet was handled with a lighter rein than the Cabinets of many other Prime Ministers, and the same description could be applied to the Cabinet of Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
We can remember times during the Government of Harold Wilson when the whip was cracked. We had references to dog licences, and his Cabinet was very much in control of what went on in Parliament. Harold Wilson dominated Parliament for a time in a way that was no different from any other Prime Minister.
Then we had my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). We remember those halcyon days when everyone was listened to and compromise and consensus were the order of the day. However, we also remember that allegations of dictatorship were levelled against that Government. It was alleged that they were pushing through vast chunks of legislation without listening. Many Opposition Members will remember that time, but now we hear that that Government operated in a way that is wholly different from the way that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is operating.
96
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has to come to the House and must go to the country. One cannot blame the British people or those hon. Members who continue to support the Government when they are asked to do so. It is not dictatorship constantly to appeal not only to members of one's own party to support legislation—as has happened for many decades—and also from time to time to have to go to the country. In the end, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is as answerable as any Prime Minister before her and as any Prime Minister who follows her.
It is not new for the constitution to be criticised for not giving rights to individuals. It was put in a rather satirical way by Stanley Holloway decades ago, long before the present Prime Minister entered No. 10. He referred to the Magna Carta,
"That was signed by barons of old
That in England today
You can do what you like
So long as you do as you're told."
At that time it was a satirical comment, but people recognised in it a basis in truth.
All Government are faced with the difficulty of striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community as a whole. Obviously, we can think of specific cases that occurred in Government's, and we wish that the decisions could have been different. That applies to Governments of all complexions. Hon. Members, rather than judges or anybody else, must have the ultimate power to question Government, and we must jealously guard that right.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has advanced a historical argument about the manner in which Cabinet has been conducted in Labour and previous Conservative Governments. Does he acknowledge that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is in the Chamber, was permitted by the Labour Prime Minister to campaign against the Government on the issue of the European Community? Secondly, in terms of the present Government, does he acknowledge that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has blown the gaff and explained all the points about how the present Government work?
Mr. Martin: Most certainly not. Several people have left the Government and are now giving commentaries on what happened and what they hope will happen, but that is not necessarily in accordance with reality. The decision whether to go into the Common Market was made on a free vote. It was then followed up, on an idea of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), with a referendum, which confirmed what had been decided in the House. I do not see any difference between what I have been saying, or anything that is inconsistent with what I have been saying, and what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said.
I occasionally agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on constitutional issues, and I certainly agreed with his point about blasphemy. I think that Macaulay foresaw him in the character of Sextus in the battle of Lake Regillus, when he said:
"Men said he saw strange visions
Which none beside might see
And that strange sounds were in his ear
Which none might hear but he".
There have sometimes been bizarre lectures from him looking at the historical scene back to the peasants' revolt,

97
well after Magna Carta, through the 17th century, and no doubt we shall hear this evening a contribution from the right hon. Gentleman that is out of the ordinary. I welcome the opportunity to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
The implementation of a Bill of Rights would be decided not by this place but by judges. That would fundamentally change the constitution that we know and that has grown up over many centuries. Most of the ideas in the European convention on human rights are based on freedoms that have been borrowed from countries such as ours that have had them incorporated for many centuries and that are safeguarded within Parliament. We should jealously guard the powers of this place rather than giving them away to judges or anybody else, because I do not believe that they can be trusted with such a role.
8.41 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I welcome the debate and the initiative to hold it. We do not often discuss the constitution. Last year, we had a little celebration about the events of 1688, which some said were the basis for our liberties, although some of us take the contrary view about that. "The Rights of Man" by Tom Paine is still banned in the Maze prison. He was one of the greatest democrats in our history and he is still controversial 100 years after his death. I doubt whether I shall achieve that honour. I admire him for having said things of such permanent importance.
I can understand the reasons that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had for introducing this motion because we have had a decade in which many unpleasant things have happened to individuals. Academic freedom in universities has been mentioned, but the Government have banned political discussion on the youth training scheme. If one is on YTS, one cannot discuss why one is unemployed because the Government have said there is to be no such discussion. We have also seen the abolition of the Greater London council, the hamstringing of local government, the banning of unions at GCHQ, the behaviour of the police at Wapping—which I saw myself, and which led to a number of police being charged—"Spycatcher", Zircon, and the "shoot-to-kill" policy.
Yesterday, I sat in Sheffield beside another Member of Parliament the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). There were television cameras there, which were filming him but those doing the filming knew that if they showed the film, they would be punished. I also knew that the Government could subpoena the film makers if they thought that the film contained any information that would lead to action against him. I have never been more frightened in my life. I was sitting in the heart of this country and seeing a Member of Parliament denied the right to speak to people.
The debate will not be meaningful if we trade party points. Although the use of the powers by different Governments may differ, the problem is the existence of the powers. I can trade many examples about what happened under different Governments, but we cannot remedy this problem without looking at the constitution as a whole. There has been much discussion about a Bill of Rights. Under it, the rights of the people would be set out and monitored by judges appointed by the Prime Minister. They are subservient to the state to the extent that the mere
98
mention of the words "national security" causes them to disregard every other factor. The judges recently disallowed a strike on the ground that it would be inconvenient, which is a contemptible attack on the idea of trade unionism, especially when coupled with sequestration of funds. This cannot be put right by adding one simple ingredient of the kind that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland proposes.
Tom Paine said that the dead cannot control the living. He was right. If the political values of society some years ago had been entrenched, and we could not change them, we should be enslaved by the dead. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) brought forward proposals—not Labour policy—which are to go to the annual conference from the national executive committee. He proposed two things. The first is than we should abolish the House of Lords, although he did not describe how that should be done. I have given some thought to the matter, for reasons into which I shall not go. His second suggestion was that one Government could entrench what they thought important at the expense of the next. What would happen if a Labour Government introduced something that a successor Conservative Government did not like? What would happen if a Conservative Government entrenched things that an incoming Labour Government did not like? There would have to be two elections before any change could be brought about. It is not practical to legislate in that way. These arguments will have to be explored. We need a national constitutional convention, called for the purpose, rather than a discussion on the matter in a three-hour debate on a Supply day for a political party.
The plain fact is that the people of this country have no basic or enforceable civil rights and the reason is simple. We are not citizens living in a democracy, but in law subjects of the Crown, which has immense powers over us and our lives. It has been said that Parliament is supreme, but it is not. Look at the words of the enactment:
"Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in the present Parliament assembled".
The Crown enacts the laws. It does not disregard the advice of either House, but we are still, in law, an advisory body. We have no mandatory power over the Crown.
What the Crown is, is an interesting question. The powers of the Crown are exercised now, in the main, by the Prime Minister of the day, personally and often in secret. It has been said that Cabinets are different, and that may be so, but Cabinets are not told what the Prime Minister is doing. Do hon. Members imagine that the Prime Minister discloses to the Cabinet that he or she intends to make somebody a peer or to instruct the security services to do whatever it is he or she wants done?
We do not even have a freedom of information Act for the Cabinet, let alone in Parliament. I would have settled for that in my time.
If people do not know what is going on, they cannot be held accountable. It is all very well for Ministers to come to the House and say that they are accountable, but we do not know what they are up to and the Conservative party did not know what we were up to when we were in Government. If we do not know, the public do not know, and when the truth slips out, the Cabinet Secretary is sent round the world to apply the principles of economy not only to public expenditure, but to the truth.

99
The prerogative powers that the Prime Minister has at his or her disposal are varied. They include the power to make war without consulting the House of Commons. There was no explicit vote before the Falklands war, as there would have been in the American Congress. The Prime Minister can also sign treaties. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession before it was published. We never saw the treaty of accession until he came home with his signature on it. Ministers can legislate in Brussels by the use of prerogative powers. As a result, Parliament is impotent before Common Market legislation. When, as a Minister, I went to the Council for over five years, I went not with statutory power but with the prerogative power to make treaties, and the prerogative power has nothing whatever to do with the House of Commons.
The corrupting system of patronage extends its tentacles throughout the administration of Government. Is there to be a night of the long knives? That is the Prime Minister deciding whether to sack Ministers. Who is to be put into the other place? The Prime Minister does not consult anyone about that. Who is to be made a judge, a bishop, or chairman of the BBC? These are powers and they are inherent in our constitution. It is all very well saying that we should try to fit a Bill of Rights into our constitution, but let us be serious about the matter. How have we won the rights that we now have? Has any judge ever seriously advanced, on a major front, the rights of the people of this country? There are women who are Members of this place, including one who sits as a Deputy Speaker. Did a judge give those hon. Members their right to vote? Not at all. It was the struggle that did it. Another example is the right to worship.
All our rights have been won by struggle. It annoys some hon. Members—that is why they need to be reminded of the fact—that all our rights were won by breaking the law on the ground of principle. There are many examples, including the Tolpuddle martyrs against the Combination Acts, the suffragettes, the Chartists and the struggle for the right to worship as we think fit. These rights were won by principled people who broke the law, and who may have suffered for doing so. In the end, however, the House had to respond to popular acclaim.
When we ask how rights have been won, I would not put the judges anywhere. If anything, they have been the ones who have tried to punish the people who tried to make these advances.
What rights should we have? One cannot mention a Bill of Rights and assume that everyone will agree. Many will say, "What a good idea," but what rights should there be?
Is the right to work a fundamental right? Is the right to a home a fundamental right? I see people sleeping out on the Embankment every night—in the summer that is more tolerable than at other times of the year. Is there a right to a home? Is that a fundamental right? Is that something that will appear in a Bill of Rights? Is there a right to lifelong education?
Is there a right to health? My father was a member of the Liberal Government of 1910. He told me that the most important thing that that Government did was to make it clear that the nation's health was a national interest. When he told me that in about 1945, I thought that he had made a pretty obvious statement. I thought to myself, "Why did
100
you mention that?" I realise now why he did so. The right to health is no longer a national interest. The right to free treatment is no longer a national interest. Is the right to dignity in retirement to be in a Bill of Rights? If these rights are to appear in a Bill of Rights, we shall find ourselves in a new arena.
During the 1945 general election, I remember going to Covent Garden with the wife of a Labour candidate, Peggy Ashcroft. I drove around in a loudspeaker van for a fortnight. I remember a man called Knocker O'Connell. He got to the microphone—that was not a good thing to happen during an election because none of us knew when he would let go of it—and produced his political alphabet. He told us "F stands for freedom:"—what Britain brags about. If you can't afford your dinner, you are free to go without." What about President Roosevelt's four freedoms? These included the right to be free from fear, disease and poverty and ignorance. For some people in society the state and trade unions are the enemy, but when we consider the rights to which I have referred, one sees that the state and the trade unions are the friends of many people.
It was the state that gave people the right to health through the National Health Service. Trade unions give people rights. I happened to be speaking in another part of the House today and someone who works within the House told me that her friend, who had worked for 32 years, had been sacked by her employer after she had had to take three or four months off work to look after her dying father. What is she to do? Does that person have rights? If she does, the trade unions and the state are her friends, not her enemies.
If we are to have the rights of which I have been speaking, how shall we monitor them? Will the judges have that role? I think not. Will Parliament be responsible for monitoring them? I think that it must be. Parliament remedies injustice. We are all employed by the public. I stayed up late the other night when the debate on the registration of dogs took place. I was in my place at 3 am. Many people had written to me to express their anxiety about dangerous rottweilers and alsatians. I replied to tell them that I agreed with the feelings that they had set out in their letters. Accordingly, I was in the Chamber to vote at 3 am. Whether we want to do that does not matter, because in the end our constituents will decide whether to return us. There is nothing disreputable about working for our employers if our employers are our constituents. When I travel around the constituency I do not say, "This is my constituency and these are my voters." I am the employee of my constituents.
As I have said, advance always comes from pressure. The Labour party has rediscovered, quite properly, the importance of Scottish devolution following a by-election at Govan. Devolution was not exactly at the top of our agenda a year or two ago. Following the European elections, there will be many Greens emerging from all political parties. That is because the environmental issue has been won. If we are to get the correction of injustice built into the system, we will not be able to use the judges. To use them would be to politicise them, and they are extremely political as things stand. Another mechanism will have to be used, perhaps one that involves the ombudsman. I am not here to make the constitution. Our rights depend for their achievement on struggle and for their maintenance on vigilance.

101
The issue that we are debating cannot be resolved until we are prepared to examine the constitution afresh from the highest to the most modest levels in our society. When we do so, I think that we shall realise that democracy and monarchical power are completely incompatible. I am not speaking about the royal family, which is a convenient cover for the abuse of Executive power. Instead, I am talking about the principle of monarchial power. I do not think that the British people will ever be free until we have become a Commonwealth, abolished Crown prerogatives —I introduced a Bill on the subject—and embodied Executive power in statute, compelling those who exercise it to be accountable to the elected representatives of the people.
There are already signs in our society of a tremendous popular demand for the basic reforms that I am advocating. There is demand for a Scottish Assembly, and that is a demand for constitutional change. There are demands for the liberation of local authorities from ministerial control. I do not agree with all the provisions of Charter 88, but that is another example of the demands that are being made. Another example is the demand for the disestablishment of the Church of England both within and without the Church, for it is absurd that a bishop can be appointed by a Prime Minister who is not a Christian. It is a strange concept, especially when the Government seem to want conformity on the Bench of bishops.
There is widespread suspicion of the role of the security services. There is opposition to the dangerous doctrine of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown. What an absurd notion that is. There is the idea that someone has an obligation when the Crown itself knows nothing about it. The Prime Minister who gives the order, or his or her minions, may use that doctrine to conceal any revelation of wrongdoing.
The siting of foreign troops in our territory raises constitutional questions. Mr. Attlee, as he then was, brought them in without telling Parliament what he was doing. He was, of course, a Labour Prime Minister. He said that they were on a training mission. They were not on a training mission at all. They were busy building their bases so that 30,000 troops from America could be in Britain, three times as many as there were British troops in India during the time of the Indian empire. There were only about 10,000 British troops in India, apart from the Indian troops. Parliament was not told about the arrival of the American troops. I do not know whether even that Cabinet understood the position.
There was the decision to transfer powers to Brussels. I am making a democratic point, not a national one. The issues that we are discussing will not go away until we examine them more fundamentally. The important question is whether we have a new constitution and a Government of Britain Bill to put to the electorate for endorsement and not whether we should have a Bill of Rights attached to our present undemocratic constitution.
Given the gross abuse of powers of the Crown by successive Governments, few in my judgment now believe in the merits of the so-called unwritten constitution. They are right not to believe in it. It is just a cover for a form of authoritarianism, whichever Prime Minister exercises power. Any sensible political party would be wise to set aside narrow party points and address its mind to the question how we can give to the people of this country a greater right to determine their own future than is possible
102
under the constitution, which we inherited from feudal days and which is now far less democratic than that in any other so-called free country in the world.
8.58 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I had not intended to speak in this debate. However, I am grateful to the Social and Liberal Democratic party for raising this subject for discussion this evening. The subject touches on some of the anxieties of thoughtful people in society. What protects us? What defends our liberties, such as the freedom of speech or whatever else we identify as essential liberties?
This debate sounded almost like my school books written by people like Dicey, Wade and Phillip about law and constitution. The old concept was that Parliament, in the last analysis, defended us. Our freedoms were safeguarded here. The simplest and narrowest freedoms, the basic freedoms of expression, conscience, thought and worship, were protected in the House of Commons.
I will not trade insults with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who cited the Official Secrets Act 1989 as progress in the parliamentary extension of liberty. I need only reflect that that Act introduces the concept of absolute offences, something that this House has campaigned and fought against for 200 or 300 years. The Minister of State believes that that is an advancement of civil liberties. I shall walk on the other side of the street, but I note what he says.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State also referred to the Security Services Act 1989. If I remember that Act correctly, it states that national security is anything that the Secretary of State for the Home Department states that it should be. Furthermore, the Act states that those matters may not go before the courts. My lessons on the constitution referred to the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law. The courts enacted the laws. That was a test and a bench mark. Freedoms of speech were asserted through the common law.
The courts mention the "treasured" right, but increasingly this century the supremacy of Parliament has enabled the Executive to take upon themselves powers that we never countenanced that decent, reasonable and moderate people would ever think it necessary to assume. It was extraordinary for me as a Conservative Member to listen to my hon. Friend the Minister of State identify as extensions of liberty two of the most oppressive pieces of legislation brought in over the past six months. For the Minister of State to do that really stands matters on their head.
What defends our liberties? I have little confidence in our courts because of the nature of their remit, their acceptance of the supremacy of Parliament and their job to interpret the law, which I do not dispute. How are our freedoms and liberties defended?
Right hon. and hon. Members have identified several issues which have caused me great anxiety. In his final hallelujah, my hon. Friend the Minister of State stated that it was wholly appropriate, without reference to the courts, to prevent free British citizens from moving from one part of this country to another. The European Court of Human Rights, however, found that improper and considered it an invasion of our freedoms. The Government decided to derogate from that and we had 12 months to figure out a way round the European court's ruling. Although the

103
Government have not found a way round it yet, no doubt they will do so in the next few months. Yet my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been citing those examples as advancements of our civil liberties.
One of my colleagues last January said that Parliament had become a pretty poor defender of our liberties. Given the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, and if the Executive can transmit through its party almost any view of the world and enact it into legislation without any correction, it is the duty of the courts to apply that legislation. People who brood on this matter tend to ask whether there is any way in which we can secure certain basic freedoms if they cannot look to Parliament to do so.
The European Court of Human Rights is the mechanism about which we are hearing much today. Incidentally, I opposed it when I first became a Member of this House. I wondered why it was necessary to have a foreign court to oversee our legislative and judicial processes. I regarded that as unnecessary. As a free-born British subject, could I not argue and defend my own rights? But as I watch the growth of Executive power and the exclusion of other centres of balance within our constitution, I become increasingly anxious.
I was elected in 1979. We were told that we were going to have less government and get the Government off people's backs. I remember all those arguments ringing in my head and I still pass them on sometimes to unsuspecting constituents who are not aware of the issues behind them.
We have increasingly concentrated power in the hands of the Executive. In my casualness, I was not mindful of the importance of local government as a balancer. At one time in Walsall, for example, it was important to a large number of residents that the grammar schools there should be maintained. The then Secretary of State for Education, Mrs. Shirley Williams—now of America—did her best to destroy Walsall's grammar schools—but she was unable to do so because the local population offered resistance and exercised its judgment through the council chamber. It happened that Labour was the largest local party and it also wanted to defend the schools, so there the matter rested.
From 1979 until today, I have watched, the Government grasp unto themselves enourmous powers, taking away the rights of local authorities to determine matters which seem wholly appropriate for them to determine. At an earlier stage, and without reflecting, I was happy to see what I thought was in my political interest come to pass. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, however, what is in one's own political interest is not necessarily in the interests of others. I am not the final inheritor of the kingdom on earth. I am merely one of those who pass through, but the powers will endure. What am I creating when I vote for legislation which increases the Executive's powers? I am handing on an instrument to a faceless successor whom I do not know, who may interpret and use those powers aggressively and in a way that will rebound to my party's dishonour and shame.
What disturbed me a little about the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister was that it did not address itself to the constitutional issue. Are our institutions sufficiently strong to protect my right to stand anywhere I like in this country
104
and say what I wish to say? To me, that is a fundamental right. Yet we have passed a Bill that the Law Lords will enact to the effect that, if I have been a member of the security services for 25 years, for example, I cannot talk about them. To do so would be an absolute offence and one for which I could go to prison. I could not even say that I received a gold watch. The Law Lords have the ultimate jurisdiction and the power to apply that law.
Where is the relief from that aggrandisement of government by a Government who have given up the great parliamentary traditions of Burke? Parliamentary democracy is not divided by two plus one—it is the process of argument and discussion. We should all remember that. Such discussion and argument may not win my agreement, but it should secure my acquiescence. Instead, in recent years our parliamentary guillotine has been flipped up and down faster than anything in the French revolution. I believe that this Parliament has seen the operation of about 30 guillotines, seven in the current Session alone. That is all contrary to our traditions.
Where is the instrument of protection? Increasingly, I have seen it in the belated, slow and unhappy process of references to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of rights that we used to take for granted. Britain made one of the major inputs into that system, as one of its original signatories, but unhappily, the aggrandisement of the Executive is causing anxiety. I believe that these are not just the views of a Conservative Back Bencher but are held more widely. During the "Spycatcher" case, I noted constant references to the European Convention on Human Rights. I also observe judges increasingly attempting to align their judgments with the convention, even though there is no question at that stage of a referral to the European Court. Increasingly, I hear free-born British citizens who still have pockets deep enough to challenge the Government and to stand up and fight them saying, "I will go further if necessary."
One day we shall have the European Court's judgments on Northern Ireland. One day we shall get to the bottom of the Stalker affair. One day the European Court will make a judgment on whether or not our official secrets legislation is reasonable. One day we shall have a judgment on the Home Secretary's warrant for investigations which make lawful that which was once unlawful.
Why is it necessary for us to go to a European court? What if the Law Lords are not mindful of the principles and articles of the convention? Is there a device that can strengthen our institutions? The Opposition have talked about reforming the House of Lords, and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield can tell us more about its workings as an "inside outsider". I too have come to the conclusion that the sunset home at the other end of the building, with its slight smell of urine, is a pretty poor body. Life support machines are wheeled in and people talk deferentially about one another's magnificent contributions. In fact, half of them are there due to a mere accident of birth, the other half by virtue of having been grand panjandrums in the Civil Service. Yet we hear them telling everyone how wonderful their careers have been. The whiff of liberty and freedom for which I ask is outside their ken. The spirit of the individual is more than a mere accident of birth.
What unique feature makes a man a legislator? The law reform proposals of Lord Mackay are a classic example of the separation of powers in this country. One cannot get into the House of Lords for Law Lords banging on about

105
how we should legislate on law reform. Hon. Members should talk to me about the role of the House of Lords. It is not respectable any more. One cannot look to the present House of Lords—I go along with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to this extent—to act as a block or check because it is representative of no one other than the appointees of the Executive who put them there. That curious arrangement was known as the dignified part of the British constitution. Bagehot said that the cure for the House of Lords was to go and see it. I recommend that those who have listened to our debates on this subject should do just that.
Mr. Benn: There is just one charge that the hon. Gentleman has not made against the system. The power of the Prime Minister to give people peerages gives her power over whole sections of society. Many of those people will never receive peerages, but will do anything in the hope that they will. The corruption of patronage—more even than the corruption of inheritance—is a factor that the hon. Gentleman should bring into his denunciation of the other Chamber, which was music to my ears and went further than I would have dared to go.
Mr. Shepherd: It is well known that, in church, I can silence two pews on either side of me by my lack of true note.
I have only to sit in this House as a Back Bencher to see how we are humbled by the creative use of the power of patronage. A Cabinet no longer able to raise its voice to speak home truths and to argue its corner generously and courageously is a sight that diminishes us. That is why we are having this debate. Cabinet government has gone by the board. The ability of the House of Commons to hold its Members accountable and to defend liberties is in question. We must therefore examine the institutional arrangements.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) honourably suggested that we could provide a halfway house—a temporary measure to give British citizens more rapid access—by incorporating the European convention. I have concluded that that would be an important contribution to improving the position while we consider more major constitutional reforms.
9.13 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Government have seriously undermined the democratic, constitutional and civil liberties of the people. A specific example is the recently enacted poll tax legislation, which comes on top of other measures affecting secrecy and freedom. The unfair influence of the poll tax will have a knock-on effect, for instance, on the franchise, which is part of the essential background of the establishment of civil liberties.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, it is outside this House that pressure is brought to bear upon us. Pressure groups and other people express their views through the electoral system. It is that which is important. The franchise is being fixed and fiddled by means of the poll tax. One might not think that is the case if one looks at the European election results, when the Government got a bloody nose, but the poll tax is manipulating the franchise.
Since the general election two years ago, the franchise has dropped by more than 4 per cent. in 13 Scottish
106
constituencies. That is not due to major population shifts, or to old people dying and fewer young people becoming eligible to enter, the electoral register. It is due to the impact of the poll tax and to the fear of the connection between the poll tax register and the electoral register. The position is even worse in England. Within a year, the franchise has collapsed by more than 4 per cent. in 17 constituencies, including Finchley, where 2,170 people are missing from the electoral register. In the Liverpool constituencies, 10 per cent. have gone missing from the electoral register within a year.
There have to be explanations, but they cannot be given in traditional terms—that fewer people are registering because no election is due. That does not fit in with what happened in the past after elections. It cannot be argued, either, that the cause is demographic change. The change has been brought about by the introduction of the poll tax. It is a sign to us all of the vast changes that the Government have introduced. The poll tax is the Government's flagship. It is a sign of the principles in which they believe.
In the referendum in Chile on the future of Pinochet, people had to pay, in order to vote and have their names put on the electoral register, the equivalent of a month's wages on an employment scheme, so many working-class people were disfranchised. However, those who voted expressed their need for democratic change.
The same has happened to some extent in this country, although it has not been on so dramatic a scale as in Chile. In Labour areas in particular, where people have the most to fear from the poll tax, between 3 and 4 per cent. of electors are beginning to disappear from the electoral register. The smashing of local government has been going on for a considerable period, but it now appears as though a ton of bricks has finally broken the proverbial camel's back.
The poll tax will interfere seriously with our democratic rights and civil liberties. Even after they have smashed local government, the Government will ensure that they fix the system by means of the poll tax. There will be a sort of Hobson's choice about who is elected. Labour-controlled authorities will be in an invidious position: should they increase the poll tax to provide services, and therefore crucify the very people that they are trying to serve, including many people who are on benefit, or should they cut services for those who need them? If local authorities do not cut the services that they provide, there are others waiting in the wings who will be prepared to cut them. The logic of it all is to tie the electoral register to the poll tax register and to manipulate the results.
The poll tax will lead to centralisation, which will be similar to the centralisation that the Government have introduced by means of many other measures, but it will be all-embracing in terms of the operation of rebate schemes, grants, the uniform business rate and many other matters that are in the hands of a Minister who acts in many respects like a municipal Mussolini in his dealings with local government.
The poll tax makes a vast attack upon civil liberties, by searching out information to ensure that, if someone has been missed off the poll tax register, they will be found on the electoral register and if they are not on the electoral register they can be hunted and searched for in a variety of records that do not exist for poll tax purposes. Today, I received a written parliamentary reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment stating:

107
"Unemployment Benefit Officers are required to disclose details of the name and address of any person or their partner, aged 18 or over, to a registration officer for a charging authority."
That was in answer to a question about poll tax registration. The answer then makes certain qualifications, but the principle operates in a host of issues in which we would not expect the state and the poll tax registrars to intervene.
That is why, following the pattern set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, I seek to bring two measures before the House—one is before the House and one is on its way. The Re-enfranchisement of the People Bill seeks to separate the electoral register from the poll tax register. There is a doubt in law about the legality of the poll tax legislation. Prior legislation which, thank goodness has never been changed will ensure that it does interfere with electoral registration—the 1275 Statute of Westminster, which guarantees free election; and the Representation of the People Act 1983, which codifies earlier legislation and provides that those free elections will allow people to qualify to vote without duress. Do the Government intend to interfere with that freedom and that right of franchise because they believe that the poll tax is even more important?
The other measure I intend to bring to the House concerns petitions. The Scottish Office has said that petitions to poll tax registrars can quite legitimately be used to place people's names upon poll tax registers, yet the ancient right of petitioning precedes that of franchise in Britain. It is the way in which ordinary people could express their views humbly to their monarch and to their Parliament. It was decided that they should not be put under duress for signing a petition, yet what is it but duress to say that when people sign protests against the poll tax, those protests will be used for the very purpose against which they are protesting?
That is another example of the vast attack on the democratic and constitutional rights of the people which is involved in the poll tax. As we have heard, it is but one of the measures before us and one of the signs that the Government's amendment is an absolute load of rubbish.
9.24 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The trouble with the word "liberty" is that it means whatever we choose to make it mean. One man's liberty is another man's tyranny. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just affirmed that the community charge, where each person that has a community benefit and can afford to make a contribution shares the burden of the local cost, is the ultimate tyranny. To others it is a much fairer way of imposing a charge upon local services than the rates.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) listed what he considered to be tyrannies. To him the first-past-the-post system of election is a tyranny, but to others the greater tyranny would be to subject our Government to the dictates of the party holding the balance which has attracted the least preferred votes. To him, the Broadcasting Standards Council imposes a tyranny of censorship. Others ask how else we can be expected to protect our children from the pollution of the mind that the television medium could and does inflict upon us without such safeguards. To him, the restriction
108
upon homosexuals not to proselytise their practices is a tyranny, but to others that most limited of restrictions extends the liberty of those who not want their children to be brought up in a too liberal environment. It is interesting to recall that the permissive society was propounded in the 1960s by one of the founders of the party that the hon. Gentleman represented.
To the hon. Gentleman, any restriction upon the rights of Crown servants to blow their secrets for money or, by striking, to bring to a standstill the vital communications centre which helps to safeguard the security of the realm, are tyrannies. However, to others such liberties are a greater tyranny and will do far more to destroy our free society than some of the limited restrictions that the Government have considered it necessary to impose.
Like his leader, the hon. Gentleman claims to believe in democracy. Does he really believe that the people of this country actually want to open Britain to the settlement of 3.25 million Chinese people from Hong Kong? If our present society is such a tyranny, is it not immoral to invite so many potential sufferers to such a tyranny for permanent settlement on our shores?
There are many other issues in which one man's liberty is another man's tyranny. What is the hon. Gentleman's view of random breath tests? Is not the restriction of the liberty of the individual the lesser evil than that innocent people should be continuously mowed down by drunk drivers in our streets? What is the hon. Gentleman's view of the firearms legislation? Is it not a safer society with licences and restrictions on the free use of even sporting weapons?
To say that the Government are cutting the overall liberties of people is such manifest nonsense that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not embarrassed about doing so.
Are we not a freer society in which the taxpayer is able to spend more of his own money through lower taxes, and a freer society now with the ability to spend abroad without restriction? Are we not freer if we own our own houses instead of being tenants of a municipality, and, if we are tenants, freer with rights that we never had before? Are we not freer in a society in which workers have a right not to be forced into trade unions, in which trade union leaders are elected and there are secret ballots, and in which the small business man now has a right to tender for contracts and to make his financial and economic way?
Are women not freer in the workplace than they were before the Government took over? Are not parents freer to choose the schools and education of their children? Is not our leisure time freer now that we can go to public houses with flexible licensing hours? In the age of the computer, are we not better protected by data protection laws? Is there not a freer press now that we have The Independent, Today and other newspapers that did not exist before, and freer broadcasting with more channels from which to choose?
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and other hon. Members have spoken about the official secrets legislation. Although it is perfectly true that Crown servants are no freer than ever they were to publish their secrets for money, are not civil servants far freer under this Government than they were before? Is not a freer society one that has done away with ministerial certificates as the test for criminality and

109
replaced them with the decision of the jury? Is it not a freer society in which the secret service is put on a statutory basis, with rights that are enforceable by the courts?
Dr. John G. Blackburn: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the Official Secrets Act. On two occasions in my life I have entered a career in which I was subject to the Official Secrets Act and I gave a signed undertaking that I would honour the details of that Act. It was part and parcel of the conditions of my service, and honoured it. Does he agree that to dishonour an oath, a pledge or a covenant is reprehensible?
Mr. Lawrence: What my hon. Friend has just said underlines the extent of his own honour, which I believe all Conservative Members emulate, which is why we supported the legislation when it was introduced.
In the contentious area of police powers, has not liberty been extended by the Police Complaints Authority, by tape-recorded interviews of suspects and by the code of practice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which is daily invoked in our criminal courts?
I could go on for four and half hours or more—but I shall not—listing the steps taken by this Government to safeguard the liberties of the individual. The total weighs heavily in the scale of freedom and far more heavily than the total of the restrictions placed on some individual freedoms to protect the wider freedom of the greater proportion of our people.
I accept the invocation of an Opposition Member not to turn this into a political debate, but when one recalls how things were under the Labour Government who ended their dreary days of individual restriction and restraint with their limitations on spending, on saving and on investment; with the total repression of state control; ever extending its tentacles into our lives; with the bureaucracy of municipal control; with the abuse of trade union power, yet with none of the liberties that I touched on earlier, how can the House pass a motion condemning the erosion of rights under this Government?
Of course we have not been perfect—that is because, as human beings, we are not perfect and because, as many hon. Members have said, our Parliament is a most imperfect institution. As a Government we have been misled into depriving prisoners of certain rights, such as that peremptorily to challenge three members of the jury. We have had our individual liberty unnecessarily restricted by the fluoridation of public drinking water, a matter upon which I could certainly talk for another four and half hours.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who spoke for the Labour party, said, it is true that we have been taken to the European Court of Human Rights on many occasions, and more often than some other countries, but that is because we have accepted the right of individual petitions since 1966, compared with that right being accepted by France in 1981; by Greece in 1985; by Spain in 1981; and by Turkey in 1988. As it takes between five and six years for an application to reach the court or the Committee of Ministers, of course we have had more violations. However, it is also because we in the United Kingdom are responsible for legal systems other than that in England, Wales and Scotland. We are responsible for the legal systems of the Isle of Man and of Guernsey, which have themselves been taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
110
However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central did not tell us that a reference is by no means the same thing as a guilty finding; that some of the issues are by no means serious, and that some are most arguable. In one judgment last year, several complaints were lodged in respect of the opening of personal letters, but only one violation was found. That is a vindication of the civil liberties enshrined in the rules in Scotland. One adverse finding was against the right of the courts to impose a punishment of birching in the Isle of Man, and many people have different views about that matter and about the civil liberties and human rights involved. Another case was the infringement of the freedom of association arising from the closed shop, to which this Government are greatly opposed, but on which they thought that they had the duty to present the arguments fairly in that court. Against that we have, with legal aid, a far more liberal and speedy legal system than many other legal systems in Europe, and our courts, with the civil liberty safeguard of judicial review, are looked upon with admiration by the rest of the world.
Having said all that, I am in favour of incorporating; the European convention on human rights into our domestic law, because I believe that we could thereby improve even further our conformity with human rights and civil liberties. I am sad that the various moves to introduce a Bill of Rights in Parliament have for procedural reasons not so far succeeded. I supported such a Bill, and I support it now, because it would be far better if our own alleged violations were to be considered by British courts, with British judges rooted in British traditions, than before foreign courts, with foreign judges rooted in foreign and quite different traditions. Such a Bill would do still more to correct our inevitable lapses and would underline Britain's complete commitment under the Government to the collective enforcement of civil liberties. It would make our efforts to sustain human rights in the world at large even more convincing.
Of course, the passage of such a Bill would not still the nonsense that cascades out of the mouths of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and his friends and allies, but then, I fear that nothing would do that.
9.35 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr Lawrence) about the extent to which a lack of definition of liberty has informed the debate. That is, perhaps, not surprising, when the director of one of our supposedly foremost educational institutions—the polytechnic of north London—believes that he is supporting liberty and freedom of speech, when he disapproves of a speaker at that institution to such an extent that he throws the whole weight of the administration of that polytechnic behind organising a rival meeting so that people are not encouraged to hear that of which the director disapproves.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who introduced the debate, listed a number of part-imaginary and part-real areas in which he believed that human rights has suffered in the past 10 years. I should like to put the other side of the case, which has not been entirely explored in the debate so far—the extent to which the Government in the past 10 years have buttressed and extended human rights by their realisation that there can be no liberty and no enforcement of rights without, at

111
the same time, protecting those rights by ownership of property, and by relating the availability of liberty to that of the right to own and the right to choose.
I cite just a few examples. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland represents a constituency which consists in part of council housing. I am sure that like me, he has discovered over the years that the one area that dominates his constituency surgeries, and which, above all others, creates unhappiness and a feeling that rights have not been given or have been taken away, is that of monopoly municipal housing. That is not surprising. If we consider housing in terms of human rights, the right of the council tenant is the right to take what he or she is given or nothing, whereas the right of the home owner, or of the tenant is a sector where there is nore than one landlord, is the right to choose the type and location of housing appropriate to the individual. That is the fundamental truth. It is this Government who have so extended that right of home ownership and are now in the process of extending the right to choose between landlords. Those are rights which were almost completely forgotten by previous Governments and certainly rights to which Opposition Members are very late converts.
Another example is that until the Government came to power, a person in employment was frequently offered the right to join a pension scheme but that right was not a right —it was a legal obligation. If the person did not want to join the pension scheme because it was wholly inappropriate to his circumstances, under every previous Government the only remedy was to leave the job. The present Government have created the right to say no—the right not to join a wholly inappropriate scheme.
There is another matter that has not been mentioned. I defer to no Opposition Member in looking to the roots of trade unionism and the extent to which in their early days trade unions represented an extension of human rights to the individual, but I hope that the Opposition join me in accepting, at least in part, that in the 1960s and 1970s that form of trade unionism had been subsumed in a trade unionism that was an instrument of repression which took rights from people rather than adding to them.
I have referred to respects in which the Government have extended liberties, but I should like to refer also to aspects where they have reduced the power of the state, thereby extending liberties. One of the Government's first actions was to abolish exchange controls. In so doing, they showed that they had the self-confidence to say to ordinary people, "You have a freedom that was not previously given, at least since the war—if you do not like this country, you have the freedom to go elsewhere and take your property with you." No previous Government had ever dreamed of giving such a freedom because no previous Government had had the self-confidence to know that most people would not want to take it once it was open to them.
It is easy to pick isolated matters on which those who wish to attack our society have, in recent years, lost part of the right to attack it, but under the Government there has been a great extension of freedom for ordinary people.
9.41 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I start with the proposition that civil liberties are easily removed but difficult to restore. History demonstrates that freedom of speech and of association were rights that had to be won from a protesting and jealous Executive. They are rights which, under our constitution, can easily be removed because the supremacy of Parliament is such that it can override any of the civil liberties that we take for granted. Our constitution provides no protection for the constitution itself. Parliament can as easily legislate to curtail liberty and freedom as to clean up the streets. Alone among the democracies in Europe, we do not have a written constitution or a Bill of Rights.
The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European convention on human rights in 1951. In spite of that, it has never been incorporated into our domestic law. Our courts cannot apply it and aggrieved citizens have to go to Strasbourg. Some have, so it has been established that there should be legal restrictions on telephone tapping and interception of mail, that prisoners should have the right to correspond with their Members of Parliament and that a woman who has the right to live in the United Kingdom may have her foreign husband live with her here. Because of the rulings of the European Court, the law relating to contempt of court has been changed, homosexual rights have been established in Northern Ireland and corporal punishment has been abolished in state schools in Scotland. If our system is so perfect, why is it that citizens have had to have recourse to Strasbourg for those purposes?
In the Minister's speech there was a central thesis that economic freedom was necessary to underpin constitutional freedoms. Put in that form, I have no objection to that principle, but it is not enough. If the only freedom is an economic one, the rich will be more free than the poor. The right to buy council houses, which I support, is a right that can easily be diluted or made more difficult to fulfil if mortgage interest payments increase because of the operation of the economy by the Government of the day.
The Minister also endorsed academic freedom, to which there would be no objection from the Social and Liberal Democrats. In another place, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead moved, and had accepted, an amendment to provide safeguards for academics against threat of dismissal on the grounds of unwelcome opinions. The amendment was resisted by the Government, which proves that there is no monopoly of good sense in relation to the preservation of liberty to be found on the Treasury Bench.
The Minister referred to judicial review as an essential feature of the protection of our liberty. He was quite right, but he omitted to point out that the single most significant feature of judicial review has been the way in which it has developed since the Wednesbury doctrine of 1947, to the Tameside case and beyond. That case is important and if he is not entirely familiar with it, the Minister should have another look at it, because it reflected an important advance in the doctrine of judicial review. It related to selective education, and the court was constrained to review the statement of the Labour Secretary of State at that time. The court's decision was not political, but its consequences were and the court must have been well aware that it would be.
There seems to be some reluctance in the House to rely on judges, but what happens when an individual goes to

113
Strasbourg? He goes to Strasbourg and enlists the aid of the court to establish the necessary proposition. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) expressed concern about the judges' role. However, in the "Spycatcher" affair they could hardly be said to be the Government's poodles. When the Labour party was endeavouring to clear up a little local difficulty in Liverpool, some of those who were the subjects of the investigations were able to go to the court and obtain an injunction against the executive of their own party to stop it proceeding in a way that would prejudice their rights. In the past, the judges have demonstrated their capacity for making proper decisions.
Much of this debate has turned on the issue whether a Bill of Rights can be entrenched in the constitution. I do not believe that it can unless the sort of wholesale review of the constitution, to which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield referred, takes place. However, neither the Treaty of Union nor the reform Acts by which we gained universal adult suffrage are entrenched in the constitution, although it is unthinkable that any Government would seek to depart or detract from those.
As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, since we accept the rulings of the Court of Human Rights, we are, by definition, accepting a restriction on our sovereignty. There seems to be no difference in principle between importing that convention into our own law, and the circumstances in which we accept the court's judgments.
An eminent contemporary jurist said:
"When times are abnormally alive with fear and prejudice the common law is at a disadvantage. It cannot resist the will, however frightened and prejudiced it may be, of Parliament."
In another place, Lord Scarman enjoys a certain reputation in constitutional matters and I would have thought that his opinion was one to which the Government should give some weight. To adopt the convention into United Kingdom domestic law would give common law precisely the advantage that it now lacks.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) who has the privilege of being my Member for Parliament, made a most interesting contribution to the debate in which he seemed to move quickly from the constitutional proposals of the policy review yet to be approved, to the changes which he wanted in society. I am not surprised that he felt it necessary to display a fleetness of academic foot which we have not previously seen from him. His programme cannot be entrenched in law any more than ours. His Act to create a five-year delay using the House of Lords can be repealed like any other. So determined are Labour Front Bench spokesmen—no doubt under the benign influence of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—to have no truck with a Bill of Rights that they are prepared to propose embracing a constitutional curiosity which many would find repugnant and which is likely to be as easily overcome as any other piece of legislation.
Part of the debate touched on freedom of information. I accept, as the debate showed, that there is an immediate clash of values between those who believe in official secrets and those who believe in freedom of information. The Minister claims that the Government's reform in this area is an advance, a proposition which brought an uncharacteristically inelegant horse laugh from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who went on to display
114
in his speech that robustness and independence of mind which have earned him the respect of all sections of the House.
The principal concern about the official secrets legislation, which is not yet an Act, is its failure to address what many regard as the real issues. Secrecy has been institutionalised in Britain since 1911 by more than 100 other statutes which make disclosure of information by civil servants or by others a criminal offence, and by strict disciplinary codes. The new official secrets legislation continues the culture of secrecy in Government. Under the new Act there will be no duty to publish information and no provision for a public interest defence for offences of unauthorised disclosure of information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out during the long debates on the Bill, it would be a crime for a civil servant to reveal that his Minister was committing a crime—a most curious consequence of the legislation and a clear insight into the thinking of the Government who prompted it.
There will be no test of harm in relation to certain disclosures such as telephone tapping and surveillance, and no requirement of guilty intent when certain disclosures are made by civil servants. If it was within our power, we would introduce a freedom of information Act to show this clash of cultures. We would establish a public right of access to official information and seek to amend the Official Secrets Bill, if it becomes law. The effect would be to put the onus on the authorities to justify secrecy, instead of on the public to justify access.
Good government depends on the ability to learn from mistakes and to improve policies. In a closed system mistakes remain hidden and no one learns from them. As this debate has shown, it is, in the end, a question of attitude. To judge from some of the contributions today, Conservative Members believe that there has been no infringement of any sort of the liberties of the subjects of the United Kingdom. They believe that from the position of the influence which they enjoy and of the privilege to which, to a certain extent, they have access.
The truth is that in many areas of our lives, public and private, our liberties have been the subject of continued erosion under all Governments since 1945. We do not notice as our liberties are diluted day by day, but eventually a point must be reached at which those who are worried about these matters take a stand, pointing out that the Government have gone so far and must be allowed to go no further. That is why we have introduced this topic for debate and why we shall invite the House to support our motion.
9.54 pm
Mr. John Patten: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) may have explained why he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced this motion, but they certainly have not explained to me exactly what their Bill of Rights would contain or how it would help or hinder. At no stage during the speeches by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) or the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East did we have any elucidation of exactly what the Bill would contain. They are barking up the wrong tree.
Bills of Rights and written constitutions are not the all-healing prescriptions that they are made out to be. We

115
can see that from around the world. No hon. Member has dealt with any authority at all with what such a Bill would contain. [Interruption.] It was not stated in the speeches. Secondly, no one has said in the debate how a Bill of Rights could satisfactorily be entrenched. The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East were, presumably, arguments of despair. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East is rather unnerving because he looks and sounds like a Tory. It is just that the words do not come out in a Tory way.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose— —
Mr. Patten: I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman only on matters of tailoring and asthetics, but not on his political arguments. I will try to make it up to him afterwards.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave no indication at all of how his shadowy Bill of Rights would be entrenched. He and his hon. Friends should have listened much more carefully to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but few SLD Members were in the Chamber when he spoke. He put his finger on the telling dichotomy between liberty and tyranny in this country—that moving frontier where one man's liberty can be another man's tyranny.
I suppose that I must turn briefly to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He lifted the veil on the Labour party policy reviews just enough to agitate the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who did not delay for a moment or hold back from attacking his hon. Friend's constitutional prescriptions, which were exceptionally muddled and unclear. The hon. Gentleman was unable to answer any of the questions put by my hon. Friends and was subject to intimidating threats from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield about the new policy review plans needing the endorsement of the next Labour party conference.
There are many hurdles before the plans by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central for reform of the House of Lords, regional assemblies and local assemblies, and so on, can be put to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman mischieviously misrepresented what I said about the recent unfortunate demonstrations in Bradford. I certainly did not introduce any overall condemnation of Moslems in this country. I chose my words very carefully, as I hope and believe that he will do in future. I called upon community leaders to try to intervene with the few hotheads who have caused trouble so as to ensure that trouble does not occur in the future. The hon. Gentleman should read the record tomorrow and have the decency to apologise. He should not try to play party politics with sensitive issues about race relations in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made an interesting speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who spoke about academic freedom. We all listened carefully to those speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South, said that the Liberals, the Alliance, the SDP, the SLD and the Democrats—to name but five —have had no serious experience in government since the first world war and simply do not appreciate how difficult
116
and demanding it is to balance freedom and security, individiual liberty and national interests. We certainly cannot look to them for guidance. That was made manifestly clear in the last three hours of debate. That is why their motion is so impractical.
This is a poignant day on which to debate an SLD motion. Yesterday's results show that the public do not seem to share that party's preoccupation with its view of civil liberties. Its vote fell to such an extent that it is now in fourth place behind the Greens, which suggests that its manifesto commitment to incorporate the European convention on human rights into Community law was not quite the standard to which the electorate wished to rally. As befits a party that we now see in terminal decline, its arguments are impractical and impossible. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the motion in the Lobby.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 164.

Division No. 247]

[10 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Livsey, Richard

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Maclennan, Robert

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Beith, A. J.

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Salmond, Alex

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Johnston, Sir Russell

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Kilfedder, James

Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Forman, Nigel

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Eric

Amess, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Amos, Alan

Franks, Cecil

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

French, Douglas

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Ashby, David

Gill, Christopher

Atkins, Robert

Glyn, Dr Alan

Atkinson, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Batiste, Spencer

Gregory, Conal

Benyon, W.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hague, William

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Boswell, Tim

Hanley, Jeremy

Bowis, John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hayes, Jerry

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Brazier, Julian

Hayward, Robert

Bright, Graham

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hind, Kenneth

Butterfill, John

Holt, Richard

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Carrington, Matthew

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Chope, Christopher

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Conway, Derek

Hunter, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon John

Irvine, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jack, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Janman, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jessel, Toby

Durant, Tony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evennett, David

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Fallon, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Favell, Tony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Latham, Michael

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lawrence, Ivan

117

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lord, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McCrindle, Robert

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Speed, Keith

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Speller, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Stevens, Lewis

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Summerson, Hugo

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mellor, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller, Sir Hal

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thorne, Neil

Mitchell, Sir David

Trippier, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trotter, Neville

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Twinn, Dr Ian

Morrison, Sir Charles

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moss, Malcolm

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mudd, David

Waller, Gary

Nelson, Anthony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Neubert, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Nicholls, Patrick

Watts, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wells, Bowen

Norris, Steve

Whitney, Ray

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Widdecombe, Ann

Page, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Wilkinson, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilshire, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Portillo, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Raffan, Keith

Wolfson, Mark

Redwood, John

Wood, Timothy

Rhodes James, Robert

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Riddick, Graham

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Tellers for the Noes:

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Ryder, Richard

Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.
Resolved,
'That this House welcomes the extension and enhancement of civil liberties over the last decade; believes that the Government has acted fairly to balance the liberties of the individual with the rights of others and of the community as a whole; and considers that these liberties are fully protected by present constitutional arrangements.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Resolved, That, at this day's sitting, the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]
Orders of the Day

  Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.—Queen's consent, and Prince of Wales's consent, signified.
  10.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill is designed to make technical improvements to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Above all, its changes will save taxpayers more than £500,000 a year.
  I thank the Opposition, and in particular the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for enabling the Bill to proceed smoothly with their full support Upstairs on Second Reading and in Committee. On the basis of that unanimity, I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that the hon. Members for Caerphilly and East Lothian are actually two different people. I represent Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is unavoidably delayed this evening. The Bill was subject to a brief but interesting debate in Committee. The Opposition supported its central objective, which was to remedy defects in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and to recover the £600,000 which the taxpayer currently pays to evaluate the products of the pesticide industry.
  Provision is also made to secure the more effective monitoring of the 1985 Act by local authorities and the Opposition accepted the Minister's assurance in Committee that the local authority associations had been consulted and further accepted that no onerous or unduly costly additional responsibilities were being placed on them.
  The Opposition recognise the value of pesticides to agriculture. However, we are determined to ensure that their use is entirely compatible with the health and welfare of the environment, of those who use them, and those who consume products on which they have been used.
  The registration and review procedures for which the Bill makes financial provision must be thorough but also speedy. Denise Low, head of the Department's pesticides safety division, is reported in Farmers Weekly of 24 March as commenting:
  "Resources are not available for us to deal with routine reviews very quickly."
  I put to the Minister a question that was asked in Committee. Will he use the Bill to ensure a speedy review of the many pesticides approved prior to 1965 and therefore still subject to no formal testing, and ensure also the registering of new products—some of which may be more environmentally friendly and desirable than those they were designed to replace?
  Will the Minister ensure that there is less of the obsessive secrecy that surrounds pesticides, their uses and approvals than currently exists?

  119
  Finally, there remains concern in the agricultural industry that the new levies may fall unfairly and disproportionately across the industry. Will the Minister continue his consultations with trade representatives and ensure some form of public reporting, or reporting to Parliament, perhaps annually, on the scheme's operation as amended by the Bill?
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian wanted to be present in the House this evening, as he carried the burden of the Bill for the Opposition in Committee. However, he has duties in connection with the European elections, and I am sure that at this moment he is savouring the atmosphere of Tory MEP-free Scotland, just as we do in Wales. However, that matter is contentious but the Bill is not. We did not oppose the Bill's Second Reading or its progress in Committee, and we support its Third Reading.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that the Bill is not contentious, and certainly it has our support. As I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, I have one or two questions to ask the Minister. I understand that since 1979 1 billion gallons of formulated pesticides have been used per annum. It is a serious matter that the number of health and safety inspectors dropped by 26 between 1977 and 1986.
  I am informed that some farms are visited only once every six or eight years, while others have never been visited. I declare an interest, in that I do not believe that an inspector has ever visited my farm. More effective policing of spraying activities is needed, and that view was shared by the Agriculture Select Commitee in its 1987 report. The Government appear to have a lack of commitment to the health and safety inspectorate.
  It is reported that, of the 71 incidents reported to the inspectorate in 1986, only 23 were properly investigated, and that inspectors are unable to provide farmers and the public with the information they require about incidents of pesticides poisoning. Although I support the Minister in every way on the pesticides issue, I believe that the Government missed a glorious opportunity to give extra financial aid so that additional inspectors can be appointed to look after the interests both of the public and of the agricultural industry.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Ryder: I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for raising three important points, with which I shall try to deal clearly and concisely.
  First, he asked whether the industry would meet the costs, and whether the programme of review and registration would be speeded up. It is no secret that we have recently had some difficulty in completing as many evaluations of both new and old substances as we wished. Industry has a great interest in the rapid processing of new substances, and we are diverting as many resources as possible to deal with the applications. The review of older substances is indirectly in the interests of the companies, but is most immediately a task that we undertake in the public interest to reassure ourselves and the public of their continuing safety. We must balance those private and
  120
  public interests at all times, and I believe that the Bill, by guaranteeing that the funds will be found, will allow us to progress faster in both cases.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether I would seek—in his words—less obsessive secrecy on pesticides. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the work of our advisory committee on pesticides is not restricted by the Official Secrets Act, and industry has said that is not the data but their commercial value that it wishes to protect. We release a great deal of information now, and the issue is really acute only in relation to old pesticides, for which we simply cannot write over 400 evaluations. More resources—and, therefore, the Bill—will help to plug any important gaps in public information that hon. Members may identify. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all that we can to provide as much information as possible. If the information is there and its publication is in the public interest, I think that we should encourage the industry to permit it to go out.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we would monitor and publish the distribution of resources between companies. The answer is yes. We are conscious of the interest of the industry and the House in the matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that consultation is already under way, and I shall inform the House of the outcome as soon as it is available.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells)—I have always known Pembroke, North as Cardigan, and I suspect that a few people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency do as well—asked me about the availability of resources for enforcement. The strength of the Health and Safety Executive is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment; it does not fall under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture. I shall of course pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.
  Let me paint a broader picture of enforcement for the hon. Gentleman. From the outset, officials in our Department envisaged that environmental health and trading standards officers in local authorities would undertake enforcement of part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985—FEPA—on the type of premises for which they have enforcement powers under the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authorities) Regulations 1977. It was not envisaged that that would entail the provision of additional resources, as such work would largely dovetail and coincide with duties performed under other legislation, and, indeed, would provide local authorities with comprehensive powers to enforce good practice.
  Discussions with representatives of local authorities have established that they would not be averse to accepting such an enforcement role, but that such work is not viewed by the associations as devoid of financial resource implications—particularly training and litigation, the cost of neither of which can be readily determined. Local authorities intend to await our decision on the local authority officers to be specified to enforce part III before assessing the extent of the training that is necessary.
  The Health and Safety Executive has a well established training scheme as well as a committee—HELA—together with sub-committees for liaison with representatives of local authorities on issues related to enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. My officials, together with those of the Health and Safety Executive, are seeking ways to use the HELA machinery to train

  121
  authorised local authority officials to discuss the FEPA enforcement issues and to promulgate the kind of advice to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly referred.
  Again I thank him for the support that both he and the official Opposition have given to this small though important Bill. I thank also the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North for his support and for that of his party.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Rhodri Morgan be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Bob Cryer be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    AGRICULTURE
    That the draft Set-Aside (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 18th May, he approved.

    JUDGMENTS
    That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved—[Mr. Fallen.]
    Question agreed to.

Housing (Warrington and Runcorn)
10.25 pm
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
Mr. Doug Hoyle: This is a subject which affects many of my constituents, particularly those who live in rented property owned by the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation. Some of the matters to which I shall refer do apply not just to the present Minister, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), but to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe).
Oscar Wilde said:
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
In this case, it is not by the people but by the development corporation—aided and abetted by the Department of the Environment and by Ministers.
The history of the matter goes back to 1984 when Warrington borough council first decided to enter into discussions, without prejudice, to see whether it could agree terms with the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation. On 21 March 1985, it formally entered into consultations, which continued until 1986. In July 1986, it was agreed that there was no reason why Warrington borough council should not take over the houses. There were no difficult estates in Warrington; rent arrears worries and vandalism were not a major problem there; the houses owned by the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation were in good condition and of traditional construction; no flat roofs or other structural problems had led to difficulties; staffing levels were low and there was no direct labour organisation.
The proposals were accepted by David Binns, the general manager of Warrington and Runcorn development corporation, who wrote to the Department of the Environment supporting the transfer of the new town housing to Warrington borough council and said:
"Warrington and Runcorn development corporation is in a unique situation in having to organise two housing transfers and two community-related assets transfers, and hence practicality might supersede policy considerations."
There was a problem at that time with Runcorn, too, for he also said:
"Transfer negotiations with Warrington borough council have already reached an advanced stage. Even if Warrington and Runcorn development corporation houses transfer to Warrington borough council, the private housing/public housing ratio in Warrington will still be around 70:30, which is above the national average."
Warrington does not have very large housing estates with demunicipalisation policies designed to break them up.
The negotiations continued, and seemed to be going smoothly until the Peterborough new town tenants were balloted as to who would be their future landlord In an 83·5 per cent. poll just over 93 per cent. of those entitled to do so opted to transfer to Peterborough city council. At that stage the negotiations appered to come to a halt and difficulties began to arise. Although there was pressure for the negotiations to continue, there was a hiatus and it was finally decided that the best way forward would be for housing associations to come into the picture and for tenants to be able to decide whether they liked the way in which housing associations functioned.
The Minister will probably say that it had nothing whatever to do with the Department of the Environment

123
and that it was purely a matter for Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to decide after consultation with the tenants, but I find that most peculiar. If the Department of the Environment had no role in Warrington and Runcorn development corporation reaching that decision, why were Department of the Environment officials involved in the negotiations for the transfer of the management to the housing association before the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation board considered the decision to transfer? If they had no part in the decision, what were they doing?
The answer was clear from the board's report on 14 May 1988. The Warrington housing association wrote to Mr. Lawton, chief executive of Warrington borough council, as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of 28 September 1988 enclosing a copy of the joint recommendation. Your letter and paper were discussed. Warrington housing association welcomes and supports the paper. It accords very closely with the position that we have taken since being invited to be involved in negotiation.
Indeed, Warrington housing association consistently put the case for the borough council's involvement and real tenant choice in our discussions up to and including ministerial level."
I find it quite amazing to be told it was purely the choice of the development corporation when the Warrington housing association wrote that it had been involved in discussions up to and including ministerial level and had asked that Warrington borough council be involved. It would have made sense for there to be a survey to find out the relative cost of the housing association and the local authority as the managing authority.
The consultation that took place lacked democracy. The tenants were given only about three weeks in which to make a choice. In the Warrington area, 5,000 houses were involved. Warrington and Runcorn development corporation received about 2,000 replies, and 99 per cent. were in favour of the local authority. Unfortunately, the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation chose completely to ignore the wishes of those people, saying that they had been subject to pressure from councillors and had not received all the information.
Our problems today arose from that point. The leader of Warrington borough council and I have written to the Minister about the lack of consultation with the tenants and have asked him to intervene. The Minister has hidden behind the fact that he has no authority to direct a housing authority on a management matter, but that is plainly not true. His Department was involved in the run-up to the decision and it was part and parcel of the decision to hand over to housing associations.
The tenants are upset because they have not been consulted. There is no doubt that the Minister could intervene at any time, particularly as he and the Government always talk about tenants' choice. When we saw the handover to the housing association, no choice was given. The Minister relies on the fact that, at some time in the future, there will be a ballot to decide what the tenants want to do—whether they want to stay with housing associations, be managers, or go to the local authority. It is hardly a level playing field. That could happen at any time. In three years, they will have had experience of housing associations, but they will not have had any experience of being under a democratic authority, with Warrington borough council. That is one reason why the tenants are upset.
124
The tenants ask why real consultation and the ballot for the managing agent could not take place. It would have made a lot of sense to have relative costs from Warrington borough council and from the housing association so that a real choice could have been made. If necessary, at some time in future they could have another ballot. At least they would have the choice. They had the housing association thrust upon them without any opportunity to choose. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point today.
I refer now to the eventual sale and to the ballot that will take place before it. The Minister will tell us that it cannot happen at the moment because legislation is to go through the House. I note that housing associations presently have a three-year term as management agents, but the agreement allows for an extension. Again, I refer to the board report of 14 May 1988.
Will the Minister give me an assurance that no extension will be permitted and that the ballot will take place as soon as possible within three years? Although the housing association has taken over, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision not to intervene, and to do so in the interests of democracy and tenants' choice, and allow tenants of the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation, even at this stage, to have the proper consultation for which they are pressing, so that they can decide whether they want the managing agent to be the housing association or the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation. There is no legislation that would prevent Warrington borough council from acting as the managing agent.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the Minister. We have had correspondence. I also welcome the expert advice that he has received from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who also has an interest in this matter.
Sir Fergus Montgomery indicated dissent.
Mr. Hoyle: A close member of the hon. Gentleman's family has an interest in this matter. Therefore, I have no doubt that the Minister will have received some expert advice from the housing associations.
So that my constituents may arrive at a proper choice, I ask that even at this stage they be given proper consultation.
10.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): It is customary to congratulate Members on their good fortune in securing an Adjournment debate. However, on this occasion I have to withhold any such benediction. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has resorted to this route to continue to noise abroad his misplaced and erroneous views on this matter. It is perfectly fair to say that despite our political differences, he knows that I have always been more than willing to discuss any matter with him. Those discussions have usually been friendly and, I am pleased to say, productive.
However, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman did not even bother to ask to see me first about this. Instead an early-day motion appeared on the Order Paper, which is not only misleading but also insulting in the way in which

125
it is written. I am glad to say that some of my hon. Friends were also incensed by this action and tabled an amendment to set the record straight.
Now the Gentleman has decided to raise the matter yet again in this debate. It is a most extraordinary way to carry on. I can only assume that it is a temporary mental aberration brought on by the hon. Gentleman's obsessive concern with this subject, which he misunderstands.
The only good thing to come out of this debate is that it gives me the opportunity to let Warrington and Runcorn new town tenants know what will happen in the future, to give them the facts, and to give them the reassurances that they have been seeking.
I shall initially deal with the future of the Warrington new town housing, as that is the hon. Gentleman's principal concern. The most important point, which he seems incapable of grasping—the wording of his early-day motion makes it clear that he is incapable of grasping this important point—is that there is a fundamental difference between management of the housing and the future ownership of the stock. That distinction is absolutely clear, indeed elementary, but it seems to have suited some people to deny it. So I stress again that management and ownership are two quite separate and distinct issues.
Let me turn first to the management of the housing. I have repeatedly made it clear that who the new town development corporation appoints to manage its housing is a matter solely for the corporation. That was the case for the new town housing in Warrington.
The board of Warrington and Runcorn development corporation proposed in May 1988 to appoint four local housing associations to manage its housing. I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman or the House that several Members of the Labour party serve on that development corporation. When the corporation took that decision it believed that there would be a number of advantages in doing so. It would ensure that a high-quality management service could be maintained as wind-up approached. It would remove the uncertainties affecting the existing housing staff, as they would be offered jobs with the housing associations where possible. It would also meet the Commission for the New Towns' request not to be directly involved in management of the stock when it inherits it from the corporation in October.
Finally, the board believed, quite rightly in my view, that giving tenants the opportunity to experience a housing association must make for a more informed choice of future landlord by tenants in the ballot of ownership. Everyone knows about the council, as they come into contact with it regularly; but who knows as much about housing associations?
Before I forget the point, I must emphasise that, as far as I am aware, the Labour party has said time and time again in the House that it is in favour of housing associations—non-profit making bodies—and I have not heard a single voice of dissent on that matter. I include the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who seems to be pleased, or at least satisfied, with the present arrangements.
I am all in favour of any action which makes tenants compare the services offered and rents to be charged by a prospective new landlord, rather than voting for the council on the basis of "the devil you know".
The corporation then consulted tenants on its management proposal as required by law. There is no getting away from the fact that it did consult tenants on
126
that, and that it did consider tenants' views as required before taking the decision to appoint the housing associations as agents. I am satisfied that the corporation acted quite correctly at all times, and that I am not the only one who believes this.
One of the corporation's tenants complained to the local ombudsman about the way in which the corporation took the decision. Having considered the case, the ombudsman decided in January not to pursue the investigation. The reason given was that there was
"no evidence of maladministration by the corporation leading to injustice".
Obviously, some tenants disagreed with the proposal and others who indicated a preference in the consultation to have the borough council as manager. The corporation carefully considered those views, but decided that there were insufficient objections not to proceed with the proposal. To put the whole matter into context, the House will be interested to know that fewer than 100 responded, out of some 4,222 tenants. In fact, specifically, 65 responded, and of those about half were in favour of the council. Therefore, to be generous, we are talking about 34, or perhaps 35, tenants.
The corporation also considered the representations that it received on a proforma that had been distributed by the borough council. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Warrington, North would have condemned the council for the misleading and incorrect information given on that proforma—but, if he will not, then I will. The proforma, surprisingly enough, failed to distinguish between management and ownership—the same mistake that was made by the hon. Member for Warrington, North in his early-day motion—and that created quite unnecessary confusion and uncertainty among the tenants. I refuse to believe that the council did not know the difference between the two.
The proforma was also misleading on rents, as it gave the impression that the borough council would charge low rents if it managed the stock. As I have told the hon. Gentleman previously, the rent levels remain the responsibility of the development corporation. Whoever manages the housing cannot influence the rent level. The recent increase in rents in Warrington is roughly the same as in all other new towns. There is no connection between the general rent increase and the corporation's decision to appoint the housing associations as managing agents. It obviously follows from that that the agency fee, which must remain commercially confidential information, is such that it can be met from the usual resources available to the corporation. The proforma also contained some rather scurrilous comments about social landlords and plaudits for the council, which were completely irrelevant to the issue of housing management.
This is where I am in some difficulty in understanding the hon. Gentleman's stance on the issue. Perhaps that helps to explain why it is that he has managed, on the one hand, to secure a number of people who appear very happily to have gone ahead and signed the early-day motion, which we have already corrected because factually it was incorrect, but, on the other, does not appear to have gathered any support, particularly from neighbouring parliamentary colleagues.
The proforma is very important because it could—and I have no doubt it did—put the fear of God into a number of people's minds.

127
Overall, having considered the matter carefully on a number of occasions, it seems to me that the corporation has acted quite properly in appointing managing agents, and that decision has been implemented. It is in force now and I have no intention of intervening to change matters.
My personal view is that many tenants will learn a lot about housing associations as a result of that agency agreement. I hope that a similar agency proposal by the Milton Keynes development corporation will also be implemented and do likewise there. As I said earlier, that can only be a good thing in terms of the future ballot on ownership. Tenants will actually be able to choose on the basis of the services and terms offered to them, rather than on the basis of misconception and misinformation. I do not see that that tips the scales in favour of the housing associations when it comes to the vote on ownership; rather, it would seem to ensure fairer competition. I can only think that, if the council is worried about the management agreement, it can only be because it might not have a very good case to put to the new town tenants —why else should it be concerned?
I shall now deal with the separate issue of future ownership of the new town housing. This is by far the most important concern for tenants. Who owns the roof over one's head is a basic and crucial matter for every tenant. We have always recognised that. We therefore decided that, as general policy, if a change of landlord is to take place, tenants must first be given a say in the matter. A change of landlord will have to take place in all the new towns as the remaining new town development corporations, and eventually the Commission for the New Towns, are all due to be wound up. Our intention has always been to offer tenants, whenever possible, a choice about the future ownership of their homes.
In Warrington, we have always said that tenants would be given a ballot on future ownership. As yet, I cannot say exactly when the ballot will take place, but that is our firm intention. The choice is likely to be between the borough council, if the council is interested, and a social landlord, such as a housing association, which would be approved by the housing corporation. The social landlord is likely to be one of the housing associations now managing the housing. We proposed this in our consultation paper on new town housing transfer last year and we have now carried it forward into the Local Government and Housing Bill. Clause 143 of the Bill specifically provides for this choice between the council and the approved landlord. The individual choice of tenants will be respected, so if the tenants want to vote for the council as their future landlord, they will be able to do so and that is what they will get. This is a long-running commitment which we have every intention of honouring.
I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the future of the development corporation's other
128
housing stock at Runcorn because it is a topical issue. There are two current issues. The first is the future ownership of the housing at Runcorn. The development corporation has been keen to see this settled before it is wound up at the end of September. It has therefore been discussing with RUNHAG, a group of five local housing associations, the possibility of transferring the stock to it, subject to tenants supporting the idea and a price being agreed for the housing. Tenants have generally supported this proposal and have been expecting to be consulted on it. We also welcomed RUNHAG's involvement and have been keen to see the transfer succeed.
Three weeks ago, just as the development corporation was reaching the conclusion of its negotiations with RUNHAG on price, Halton borough council decided that it might—and I stress might—be interested in acquiring the new town housing and threatened legal action to achieve that end. That interest comes very late in the day. Previously, the council had expressed no interest. I asked the council on no fewer than three occasions in the past eight months to make its intentions clear, but it did not do so.
In the circumstances, I think it quite right that the negotiations with RUNHAG should run their course and the tenants should be consulted on this option. I have therefore told the council that I do not intend to ask the development corporation to open negotiations with the council on future ownership so long as RUNHAG remains in play.
The second issue is the future of the Southgate estate. Proper tenant consultation has now taken place. The board of the development corporation will be considering tenants' views tomorrow and the final decision will be taken on the corporation's proposals for demolishing the existing buildings.
I have made my own views on this well known. I am convinced that demolition is the only sensible answer. We shall then have to consider the future of the site, whether some replacement housing might be provided and the timing of any redevelopment. I hope that Merseyside Improved Houses will continue to discuss the options available with the interested parties and that we can meet as far as possible the wishes of existing Southgate residents expressed in the consultation responses.
I repeat our longstanding commitment to give new town tenants in Warrington a chance to vote for the landlord they want, including the council. In the meantime, they will be managed by the housing associations, which I am certain will be able to prove to many tenants that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are completely misplaced and the council's scare stories unfounded. In Runcorn, I hope that very shortly tenants will be able to be consulted on whether they want RUN HAG to be their landlord. I am sure that it would be the right choice.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place at the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Brussels regarding a comprehensive test ban treaty; what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards negotiations with the Soviet Union on this subject; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No discussions about a comprehensive test ban treaty took place at the recent NATO summit.

  We welcome the bilateral negotiations between the United States and Soviet Union in Geneva aimed at the ratification of the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty and threshold test ban treaty, and hope that these two treaties will be ratified soon. Further steps to limit tests will then have to be considered. For the foreseeable future the United Kingdom's security will depend on deterrence based, in part, on the possession of nuclear weapons. That will mean a continuing requirement to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain effective and up to date.

  Sea Birds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 16 May,Official Report, column 119, if she will outline the research being undertaken by the Nature Conservancy Council into the identification of the most important sea bird feeding and gathering grounds in the United Kingdom; when Her Majesty's Government expect to receive the findings of this research; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1979, the Nature Conservancy Council commenced the sea birds at sea project, a research programme to study the distribution of sea bird populations most at risk from pollution, particularly oil-spill, in the North sea. The work was jointly funded by the oil and gas industry, NCC and Government Departments. A report of the studies was published in 1987.

  A further phase of the project is now in progress, extending the survey to waters north and west of Scotland. The Department of the Environment expects to receive a preliminary report on the most important areas for sea birds later this year.

  A final phase, due to start in 1990, will complete the geographic coverage by surveying the English channel and south-west approaches.

  European Commission
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the attendance of individual commissioners at meetings of backbench Members of the national Parliaments.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Any such contacts would be a matter for Commissioners and national Parliaments.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy for negotiating proposals by the European Community Commission as between(a) the Commission in general and (b) with individual commissioners; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Proposals are put forward by the Commission as a whole. Generally, they are discussed in the Council with those commissioners responsible for individual measures, rather than with the whole Commission. The same goes for bilateral contacts.

  Quasi-judicial Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what restrictions are placed on the appointment of civil servants, past or present, to quasi-judicial jobs such as regulators where those civil servants may be privy to preferential information on the nature of the job;

  (2) what restrictions are placed on the appointment of civil servants, temporary or permanent, to quasi-judicial jobs such as regulators;

  (3) what guidelines are issued to departments for the appointment of regulators and other governmental quasi-judicial appointments.

  The Prime Minister
  In general, Ministers are free to decide who should be appointed and the manner and methods of identifying suitable candidates, subject to any statutory or constitutional requirements affecting the individual case. Full information about the job is made available as a matter of course to all those being considered for appointments.

  EC Regulations
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 13 June to the hon. Member for Southend, East, what information she has received concerning the proposed EC regulation on the control of concentrations and, in particular, to articles 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c) and article 13 thereof; and whether she will take steps to improve the arrangements by which she is informed of legislative proposals being submitted by the Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying his earlier question of 13 June. I am of course aware of the proposed regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings which was the subject of a Commons debate on 17 May at columns 427–28 and is expected to be considered at next month's meeting of the Internal Market Council.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the visit of General Jaruzelski of Poland, on 10–11 June, the issue of the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to be held in 1990, was discussed.
  3
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask The Prime Minister if, during the visit of the Prime Minister of Jamaica on 14 June she discussed(a) initiatives to be taken to increase the number of non-aligned states which are signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the period leading to the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference in 1990 and (b) the Jamaican Government's view of the present utility of article IV of the non-proliferation treaty in regard to nuclear exports.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply on representations recently received on nuclear weapons, on 26 May,Official Report, column 759, she will list the organisations and individuals from whom representations were received for and against nuclear weapons; and why the information sought can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 26 May at column 759.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place during the visit of President Bush to the United Kingdom on 31 May to 2 June on the 1990 fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference was not discussed during President Bush's visit. However, preparations for the review conference are frequently discussed with the Americans at an official level.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's understanding of what percentage is represented by the word "partial" used in the communique issued by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministers in regard to the future revocation of land-based short range nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  The word "partial" was chosen deliberately to make clear that there was no question of the complete elimination of those systems.

  Power Stations (Visits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last visited(a) a nuclear power station (b) a fossil-fuelled power station and (c) a renewable energy project; what was the occasion of her visit; and what it cost.

  The Prime Minister
  Within the United Kingdom, the most recent visit to a nuclear power station was on Saturday 13 May 1989, when I undertook the official opening of the Torness nuclear power station in East Lothian. I have not yet visited a fossil-fuelled power station as Prime Minister. In September 1986, I visited the energy world exhibition in Milton Keynes, which contained projects involving renewable energy. Information on the precise cost of these visits is not available, since each was combined with other engagements.

  European Court
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those occasions in each of the last three years when the 4
  United Kingdom has been taken before the European Court, listing in each case the nature of the breach leading to action by the Commission and the court decision.

  The Prime Minister
  Proceedings commenced against the United Kingdom under article 169 of the treaty of Rome in the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Case No.

  Nature of breach

  Decision of courts

  1986

  60/86

  Dim-dip headlamp devices: non-compliance with Council Directive 75/756

  Judgement for the Commission

  1987

  93/87

  Failure to pay monetary compensatory amounts— triangular arrangements for imports for wheat

  Judgement for the United Kingdom

  255/87

  Benzene in toys—failure to implement Council Directive 82/806

  Case withdrawn

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  —

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) what is the average margin between the price at which firearms with a recognised value in excess of £150 have been bought in in consequence of their prohibition under the Firearms (Amendment) Act, and the price at which they have been disposed of;

  (2) what is the average price at which firearms bought in at a price of £150 in consequence of their prohibition under the Firearms (Amendment) Act have been disposed of.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None of the weapons surrendered under the buy-in scheme is to be disposed of by way of sale. Save for a small number of weapons of historical significance worthy of preservation for the national heritage, which will be offered to the National Museums Consortium, arrangements have been made for all weapons surrendered under the scheme to be destroyed.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of firearms which became prohibited weapons under the Firearms (Amendment) Act which have been bought in at(a) a cost of £150 and (b) a sum in excess of £150.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A substantial number of claims made under the Government buy-in scheme for weapons newly prohibited by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 were submitted on or shortly before the scheme finished on 30 April. Statistics on the operation of the scheme are not yet available, but we propose to publish them as soon as they are collated.

  Refugees and Soldiers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what up-to-date information he has about(a) the numbers and proportion of refugees from Nazi and other anti-semitic persecution in Europe, and of soldiers from Central Europe, who settled in the United Kingdom between 1930 and 1945, who subsequently

  5
  became naturalised British subjects with a permanent right of abode in the United Kingdom and (b) what proportion are still resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available.

  Gartree Prison
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to arrange for access to Her Majesty's prison Gartree by the media and local telvision following its regrading from category A to B.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's prison Gartree is to change from a dispersal prison to a category B training prison in 1992. The prison service has a good record of allowing access to its establishments by the media and all such requests are carefully considered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be in a position to give a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East about Michael Patrick Brown, HMP, C58729; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have replied to the hon. Member's letter today.

  Television Programmes
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his response to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 19 May,Official Report, column 602, what assessment he has undertaken of the suitability for export of television programmes produced within Scotland; and what steps he is undertaking to encourage independent Scottish television producers to export material.

  Mr. Renton
  In the exchanges to which the right hon. Member refers, I was offering a possible explanation for the point raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie about the relatively low proportion of programming produced by Scottish independent producers which was networked in other parts of the United Kingdom. My argument was simply that, in the end, successful programme producers will be those who respond to the demands of those who commission programmes and, ultimately, those who view them.

  As to the steps being taken to encourage Scottish independent producers, the broadcasting White Paper sets out the Government's intention to require that a minimum of 25 per cent. of programmes produced for Channels 3, 4 and 5 and DBS must come from independent producers, and it will be open to Scottish producers to compete for these new opportunities that will be made available. I have also welcomed the suggestion of the chairman of the IBA that Channel 5 should be based in a production centre north of Birmingham, since the new channel can be expected to encourage and foster a new local industry in independent production.

  Mr. Roc Sandford
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he knows the current whereabouts of 6
  the wooden pipe and 1·54g of cannabis used in evidence in the prosecution of Mr. Roc Sandford at Knightsbridge Crown court in October 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that the pipe and cannabis used in evidence in the prosecution of Mr. Sandford were destroyed in January this year.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify the dates the various interested bodies decided to take no disciplinary action and to prefer no charges against the officers involved in the prosecution of Mr. Roc Sandford for possession of drugs at Knightsbridge Crown court in October 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Crown prosecution service decided on 5 December 1986 that there was no evidence to justify criminal proceedings against the officers concerned; and that the Police Complaints Authority agreed on 30 April 1987 that no disciplinary action should be taken.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement his Department had in the decision not to prosecute or discipline the officers involved on the prosecution of Mr. Roc Sandford for possession of drugs at Kinghtsbridge Crown court in October 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The decisions are the responsibility of the Crown prosecution service in respect of criminal proceedings and the Commissioner and the Police Complaints Authority in respect of disciplinary proceedings.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to release the names of the arresting officers and prosecution witnesses in the cases listed in the question of the hon. Member for Birkenhead on 6 July 1988,Official Report, column 596–97.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Where inquiries into allegations of impropriety on the part of the police have been investigated without evidence being forthcoming to support either criminal or disciplinary proceedings, it is not the practice for the officers or other persons involved in the cases to be identified.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is still considering the inquiry into the circumstance under which charges were brought and proceedings conducted against Mr. Roc Sandford; and what conclusions have yet been drawn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am informed by the Metropolitan police that, following the conclusion of the civil action taken by Mr. Sandford, additional inquiries were made and a report was submitted to the Police Complaints Authority, which indicated on 1 June 1988 that the matter should be taken no further. These further inquiries required no additional consideration by the Crown prosecution service. The inquiries are therefore considered to be complete.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Metropolitan police solicitor failed to give discovery of the appropriate documents
  7
  during its defence against Mr. Roc Sandford's civil action for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution during the time period required by the court.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Metropolitan police solicitor that the court ordered both parties to exchange lists of documents within 28 days. As the question of the contents of the Metropolitan police's list was referred to counsel for advice, an extension was requested and was granted by Mr. Sandford's solicitors. Shortly afterwards, negotiations commenced, which eventually led to an out-of-court settlement. Because of these negotiations Mr. Sandford's solicitors did not press for the list, although it would have been open to them to do so.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service College (Principal)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the appointment of the principal of the Civil Service college.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: The Civil Service college was launched as an executive agency on 6 June 1989. The current principal of the college, Mr. Roger Jackling, was appointed as its first chief executive.

  Mr. Jackling, a career civil servant, has been principal for two and half years. He has maintained and improved the high teaching standards of the college and evolved the management systems which have resulted in a smooth transition to agency status. He will return to his parent department in the autumn and his successor will he recruited through an open competition run by the Civil Service Commission.

TRANSPORT

  Excise Duty Evasion
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the results of the campaign during May by the police in Surrey and Sussex with the assistance of his Department against excise duty evasion by motor vehicle owners.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Nearly 2,000 motorists were reported for not having a current road fund licence on display. These cases are being investigated; where it is clear that vehicle excise duty has been evaded, those responsible will be prosecuted.

  Special VED enforcement campaigns run jointly by Department of Transport and police forces form an important addition to the day-to-day VED enforcement activities. They have proved very effective in encouraging people to relicense their vehicles voluntarily as well as in catching the more determined evaders. A period of two weeks of extensive local publicity is followed by a further two weeks in which the police concentrate on identifying and reporting those who have ignored the warnings. Evaders caught during campaigns are not given the opportunity to settle out of court.

  The policy find that campaigns help them to detect many other offences including lack of insurance and MOT certificates, disqualifications, unroadworthy vehicles and occasionally more serious crimes.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to reconsider extending the Northern Line tube to Camberwell and beyond following the omission of this option from the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  The central London rail study concluded that extending the Northern line to Camberwell could not be justified in terms of meeting that study's objectives, in particular to seek relief to central London congestion. That being so, it is for the Underground to consider whether such a link is worth while both in its own right and in relation to other priorities for improvements to the network.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to privatise the training of air traffic controllers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Services. I understand that training procedures are being reviewed.

  Manchester Airport (Fire)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the action taken by the Civil Aviation Authority in implementing the recommendations in the report by the Accidents Investigation Board into the fire involving a British Airways 737 at Manchester airport in 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These Civil aviation safety regulation issues are wholly the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. The authority's current position on them is set out in its follow-up-action on accident reports (FACTAR) issued on 13 March 1989 in response to the AAIB Report on the B737 accident at Manchester, 22 August 1985. I have arranged for a copy of the FACTAR to be sent to the hon. Member. I understand that the Authority will publish shortly the initial report on the research it has undertaken into evacutation requirements.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drums or other containers containing chemicals have sunk in waters within 100 miles of the British coast in the last 30 years; how many have been recovered; how many are known to have leaked; and if he will specify the nature of the chemicals(a) known to have leaked, and (b) known to he under water and assumed not to have leaked.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is not available.

  South Yorkshire Supertram
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to meet representatives of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority and executive, Sheffield city council, the development corporation and the chamber of commerce, to discuss the PTE's application for grant for the South Yorkshire Supertram project.
  9
  Mr. Portillo
  I met this morning with representatives of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority and executive, Sheffield city council, the development corporation and the chamber of commerce. I discussed with them the application made by the PTE for grant, under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968, towards the cost of Line I of the proposed South Yorkshire Supertram system.

  Further information and analysis will be needed on a number of important issues before it will be possible to reach a decision on grant. For example, the evaluation will have to include confirmation of the estimates of capital costs, a review of carrying capacity, and full allowance for the effects on other road users once the detailed highways arrangements have been designed. I will also expect the PTE to develop sound proposals for project management and financing, and to secure contributions from the private sector—particularly the interests along the route which will benefit from the project.

  If the evaluation can be confirmed and the financing and other issues can be satisfactorily resolved, I would hope to approve a capital allocation and section 56 grant towards the capitalised cost of the expected financial deficit on Line 1. The time at which resources and grant might be made available would be determined in the light of analysis. In the meantime, I have decided to make capital allocation and 50 per cent. grant available in respect of eligible costs to be incurred in carrying out the further analysis required.

  Customs and Immigration Facilities
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the provision of on-train Customs and immigration facilities between countries within the European Community and between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; whether there are to be frontier controls at Waterloo for passengers terminating in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that on-train controls are carried out between a number of Community member states, but not everywhere. Travellers between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are not subject to immigration controls, but are subject to customs checks; passengers on express trains which travel non-stop to Belfast are cleared on disembarkation through the normal red/green customs channels, while customs clearance of stopping trains is carried out on the train while it is stationary at a point near the border. The present intention is to carry out customs checks at Waterloo for Channel tunnel rail passengers arriving in London. Immigration arrangements are under review. British Rail's choice of terminal was not dictated by frontier control considerations.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the provision of Customs and immigration facilities for the Channel tunnel rail link and those passengers disembarking in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  We receive representations from time to time about the frontier control arrangements for Channel tunnel passenger trains.

  London Regional Transport (Government Subsidy)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the amount of Government subsidies given to London Regional Transport in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The grant paid to London Regional Transport in each of the last three years was as follows:

  Year

  Amount

  1986–87

  295

  1987–88

  239

  1988–89

  190

EMPLOYMENT

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors were employed by the health and safety inspectorate in 1979; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1979, 742 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 June 1989, the total was 621·5.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries had the largest rise in the number of people in employment during the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows, for the United Kingdom and the major OECD countries, the increase in civilian employment in the year to the fourth quarter of 1988. The United Kingdom had the largest percentage rise.

  Increases in Civilian Employment United Kingdom and Major OECD Countries

  Thousands

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  642

  2·5

  Canada

  288

  2·4

  United States

  2,386

  2·1

  Japan

  864

  1·5

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  159

  0·6

  Italy

  134

  0·6

  France

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a Not available

  Sources:

  United Kingdom: Department of Employment

  Other countries: OECD Labour Force Statistics, 1989/1

  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the value, in 1989, of the April 1978 youth opportunities programme weekly allowance for trainees if increased each year by(a) at a rate equal to the annual rate of price inflation and (b) at a rate equal to the annual average increase in wages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  An allowance of £19·50 per week was paid to trainees on the youth opportunities programme in April
  11
  1978. If this allowance had been increased in line with changes in the retail price index, its value in May 1989 (based on the latest available figures) would have been £45·45. If the allowance had been updated to take account of increases in average earnings, its value in April 1989 (based on the latest available figures) would have been £58·13.

  The youth opportunities programme was replaced in 1983 by YTS, which provides substantially higher quality training than YOP and incorporates structured off-the-job training. It is therefore misleading to compare the values of the YOP and YTS allowances, the the YTS allowance reflects the fact that trainees are still learning. Employers are free to supplement the minimum trainee allowance, and many do.

ENERGY

  British Coal Corporation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the financial outlook for the British Coal Corporation for 1989–90.

  Mr. Parkinson
  As I announced on 6 February at column 479–480 the corporation is expected to make a further substantial loss in 1989–90.

  The balance sheet at March 1990 will also be affected by the need to bring the corporation's accounting treatment for its concessionary coal liabilities into line with statement of standard accounting practice 24. This change will not affect the future stream of concessionary coal liabilities as already anticipated by the corporation, but will affect the way in which these liabilities are accounted for. Creating a provision in the corporation's balance sheet in respect of these liabilities will involve a prior year adjustment. This will substantially increase the accumulated deficit shown in the corporation's accounts at 31 March 1990.

  The Government have given an assurance each year since 1982–83 that, subject to Parliament approving any necessary provisions, adequate funds will continue to be made available to enable the Corporation to meet its financial obligations as they fall due. A minute was laid before the House on 8 June setting out the Government's intention to extend this commitment to include the corporation's financial year ending 31 March 1990.

  Nuclear Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the current British Nuclear Fuels plc offer to reprocess West German spent nuclear fuel includes any undertaking on British Nuclear Fuels plc part to retain in the United Kingdom any part of that spent fuel as remanufactured nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  BNFL's offer to reprocess West German spent nuclear fuel includes no such undertaking.

  Dounreay Reactor
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest position in relation to the fast reactor site at Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As my right hon. Friend said in a statement to the House on 21 July last year, the Government will continue to fund the prototype fast 12
  reactor at Dounreay until March 1994 and the associated reprocessing plant until March 1997. The importance of Dounreay to the Caithness economy was a major factor behind the Government's decision, which gives the area the chance to develop alternative sources of employment and growth.

  As far as Dounreay itself is concerned, there are a number of initiatives being taken by the Dounreay management and workforce to find additional work for the site.

  Dounreay has been identified as a site where further investigations should take place to determine its potential as the site for the United Kingdom's radioactive waste repository. A decision on this, however, is still some way in the future.

  Electricity Meters
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation to ensure that domestic electricity consumers are not billed for electricity consumption who have been undercharged through the meter being faulty, where the meter has not been examined within the preceding 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Under the Electricity Bill a public electricity supplier will be entitled to recover from a consumer any charges which are due to him and may disconnect the supply according to the procedure set out in the Bill if payment is not made, unless there is a genuine dispute over the amount. In recognition that some consumers do run into difficulty with their payments, the industry currently operates a code of practice on the payment of bills which offers a number of protections against disconnection. Under that code consumers will not be disconnected if they enter and keep to an arrangement to pay off the debt by instalments over a reasonable period. The draft public electricity supply licence requires the licensee to produce a similar code to ensure that this approach continues after privatisation.

  Euratom Safeguards Inspectors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many United Kingdom citizens are presently Euratom safeguards inspectors; on what grade they are; for how long each appointment has been made; and what steps he is taking to increase the number of United Kingdom safeguards experts at Euratom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We have been informed by the Commission services that Euratom safeguards inspectors are recruited following standard recruitment procedures pursuant to the staff regulation of the EC. Presently there are 16 permanent EC civil servants of United Kingdom nationality in the grades A3 to B5 deployed as Euratom safeguards inspectors. It is for the Commission to initiate proposals for any staff increases.

  IAEA Safeguards Inspectors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many United Kingdom citizens are presently on the staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency working as safeguards inspectors; on what grade they are; for how long each appointment has been made; and what steps he
  13
  is taking to increase the number of United Kingdom safeguards experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom currently has five officers in the P3 and P5 grades working in the operations divisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards department. Contracts are variously for three or five years. United Kingdom citizens also occupy a number of other professional posts in the support divisions of the safeguards department. Vacancy notices are circulated to appropriate organisations in the industry.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received a report on developments discussed at the I I th biannual symposium of the European Nuclear Safeguards Research and Development Association, held in Luxembourg on 30 May to 1 June, in so far as the issues relate to safeguards matters for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  An official from my Department was present at the symposium.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the United Kingdom ambassador on the council of the International Atomic Energy Agency has received the 1988–89 safeguards implementation report from the agency.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom representative on the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors has received the safeguards implementation report for 1988.

  Reactor Fuels Storage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek an urgent meeting with Lord Marshall, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, concerning the problems identified by Lord Marshall in the adequacy of the wet storage facilities at British Nuclear Fuels plc., Sellafield for Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There are ample storage facilities at Sellafield to handle spent Magnox and advanced gas cooled reactor fuel.

  Libya (Technology Transfer)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there are any restrictions on United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority technology in the area of technology transfer and assistance to Libya.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology are made within the guidelines set out in the statement by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. James Callaghan, on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–16.

  Atomic Energy Authority Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what departmental representation was present at the launch of Atomic Energy Authority Technology on 16 May; and if he will make a statement on the prospects for Atomic Energy Authority Technology.
  14
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the launch, as did a number of officials. I welcome the authority's initiative in marketing its R arid D skills and expertise under the banner of Atomic Energy Authority Technology.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the future of opencast mining; and what consideration is given to environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Opencast coal is an important national resource. Proposals for opencast operations need to be considered with full regard to their potential environmental effects and the scope for mitigating those effects. It is in the national interest to maximise production where that can be done in an environmentally acceptable way. To help mineral planning authorities in England and Wales strike the correct balance, the Government last year issued new, fuller guidance on the considerations to be taken into account.

  Operators are expected to seek the mineral planning authorities views at an early stage on the preparation of environmental assessments appropriate to the scale of the development and the sensitivity of its location. Environmental assessments are normally required in the case of opencast mine sites of 50 hectares and above, or where they affect particularly sensitive areas. Similar requirements apply in Scotland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Billing Computer Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that the police, inland revenue, Customs and Excise, and security services can obtain information that relates to telephone subscribers from the itemised billing computer systems of BT and Mercury only when they have a warrant from a court; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to amend the arrangements in the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Unsolicited Telephone Calls and Faxes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government will introduce legislation to control unsolicited telephone calls and unsolicited faxes by restricting the sale of telephone numbers of subscribers; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As announced separately, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accepted the advice of the Director General of Telecommunications that the new branch systems general licence should contain a condition aimed at alleviating the nuisance to the users of telephone, fax, or other telecommunications systems, caused by persistent but unsolicited attempts to sell products and services.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the cumulative cost to industry of recent rises in interest rates.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1989 so far, there has been a single one percentage point increase in bank base rates. The estimated cost to industrial and commercial companies of a one percentage point increase in bank base rates is about £0·4 billion in a full year.

  Information Technology Research
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he is doing to encourage collaboration between universities and industry in the field of information technology research.

  Mr. Forth
  Chapter 6 of the Department's White Paper on information technology (Cm. 646), published in March 1989, described the DTI's policy and programmes in support of IT collaborative research between universities and industry. Since then, the DTI and the Science and Engineering Research Council have announced support (£15 million) for a new LINK programme of collaborative research in opto-electronic systems, and increased funding (£7 million) for the information engineering advanced technology programme.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his recent announcement on the future of the national engineering laboratory.

  Mr. Newton
  To date I have not received any representations on the proposals for the laboratory, which I announced on 17 May. However, the Department of Trade and Industry Council of Civil Service Unions has requested a meeting with the permanent secretary.

  Overseas Companies
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many overseas companies have set up operations in Britain; and what is his estimate of how many jobs such overseas investment has created and is sustaining.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau started formally recording individual investments in 1979, there have been 2,647 inward investment projects, creating over 212,000 new jobs and, since 1983, are known to have safeguarded some 107,000 others. These figures are based upon information provided to the Department at the time the investment decisions were made and take no account of subsequent developments. They include the establishment of new businesses, the expansion or acquisition of existing businesses, and involvement in joint ventures.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further steps he intends taking to reduce the burden of statistical form filling in small businesses.

  Mr. Maude
  I announced the publication of a scrutiny of the collection of Depatment of Trade and Industry 16
  statistics in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 10 May at column 435. The recommendations of the scrutiny will be implemented over the next three years and will reduce the costs to businesses of these inquiries by about a quarter. Many of the recommendations will further help to ease the burden on the minority of small firms who are currently approached in the inquiries.

  DTI Ministers will continue to press to minimise the burden of inquiries on all firms so far as it can be done without reducing the quality of statistics needed by Government. In particular, objectives to this end will be agreed with the enlarged Central Statistical Office, which will assume responsibility on 31 July for running the inquiries now conducted by DTI.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of manufacturing employment is in businesses of approximately less than 200 employees in the current year and each of the last 10 years; and if he will also give comparative figures, where the data is available, for other European Community countries.

  Mr. Maude
  The available United Kingdom information is as follows:

  Percentage of United Kingdom manufacturing employment within local sites (factories etc.) with less than 200 employees

  Percentage

  1989

  48

  1988

  47

  1987

  46

  1986

  45

  1985

  45

  1984

  43

  1983

  41

  1982

  39

  1981

  n.a.

  1980

  n.a.

  1979

  37

  n.a. Not available

  Source: Size Analyses of United Kingdom Businesses (PA1003).

  Figures for the European Community are available for certain countries solely for 1984, and relate to enterprises (companies etc.) with employment of 20 to 99 as a percentage of all enterprises with employment of 20 or more:

  Percentage

  FR Germany

  15

  France

  21

  Italy

  32

  Luxembourg

  14

  Netherlands

  29

  United Kingdom

  18

  Source: EUROSTAT and United Kingdom census of production.

  Mail Carriers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will reduce the minimum £1 charge which private carriers of mail have to charge.

  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.

  Cars
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how many cars were(a) imported, (b) exported, (c) home produced and (d) sold in he United Kingdom in the past year, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall arrange for the figures to be included in the Official Report. While these show the decline the industry has suffered since the late 1960s, recent trends show an encouraging and sustained upsurge in United Kingdom production and exports.

  The information is as follows:

  Thousands

  1968

  1973

  1978

  1988

  New cars imported

  102

  505

  801

  11,349

  New cars exported

  677

  599

  466

  1258

  Cars produced in the United Kingdom

  1,816

  1,747

  1,223

  1,227

  New cars registered in the United Kingdom

  1,145

  1,688

  1,592

  2,216

  1 Provisional.

  Garden Products
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has any plans to stipulate that a sell-by date be displayed on garden products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any progress has been made on the disposal of Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited, Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to the reply, 26 May, column 777]: I understand that, although there has been a much less positive response than the HLD Group had hoped to its consultation with the work force of Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited on terms of future employment, the group regards it as just sufficient for it to be willing to enter into detailed negotiations with British Shipbuilders for the purchase of the yard.

  Ivory
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if France sought the approval of the EEC Commission on its decision to ban ivory imports on 5 June; and if he will make a statement on the rights of EEC member states to impose such unilateral trade curbs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under article 15 of the EC regulations implementing CITES in the Community, member states may take stricter measures on CITES species in certain circumstances. We had no formal notification that France intended to introduce a ban on the import of ivory before the Council of Environment Ministers on 8 and 9 June where member states were invited to do so.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Black South Africans (Scholarships)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many scholarships have been given to black South Africans for each of the last five years by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the British Council.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following is the information. All awards listed are administered by the British Council.

  Awards funded by Her Majesty's Government

  A wards funded by British Council

  1985–86

  115

  12

  1986–87

  235

  14

  1987–88

  390

  10

  1988–89

  434

  10

  Malaysia
  Miss. Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will list for the last five years gross bilateral aid given to Malaysia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures are:

  £ million

  1984

  4·992

  1985

  7·454

  1986

  55·494

  1987

  9·402

  1988

  10·057

  Atlantic College
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have any plans to sponsor students from Soweto to attend Atlantic college.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are in close touch with Atlantic college about the possibility of sponsoring a limited number of students from South Africa.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what conclusion he has reached in his discussions with the banks and financial sector on his student loans proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made earlier today.

  Crookham Court School
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether a notice of complaint was served on the proprietor of Crookham Court school following Her Majesty's inspector's report of 1981 and of 1988 relating(a) to the inspection, (b) to the fire precautions or (c) to any member of the staff.

  Mr. Butcher
  Her Majesty's inspectors carried out two full inspections of Crookham Court school, in November
  19
  1981 and in November 1987. On both occasions, a number of deficiencies were identified in the report. These deficiencies and recommendations for improvement were brought to the attention of the school in strongly worded official letters which accompanied the reports rather than through a formal notice of complaint. Recently many parents have chosen to remove their children from the school.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to respond to the letter from the six teaching unions, dated 6 June, about the restoration of collective bargaining for teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Anderson-Fabry's Disease
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is conducted into AndersonFabry's disease; and what funds are provided by his Department for research into this illness.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council, which receives a grant in aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government supports medical research. The council itself determines the allocation of the funds at its disposal. In 1987–88, the last financial year for which figures are available, the council spent £37,000 on research specifically into Anderson-Fabry's disease. More generally, the council is funding a considerable amount of research on the X chromosome, some of which could contribute to an understanding of the disease. The council is always willing to consider soundly-based proposals for new research programmes, in competition with other proposals.

  Additionally, university departments and medical schools support a range of research from block grants from the Universities Funding Council, some of which may be relevant to an understanding of this disease.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Short Bros
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Strangford of 13 June, what were his reasons for not including the oral question about Short Bros plc from the right hon. Member for Strangford on 9 March,Official Report, column 1018; and whether he took account of that question in his response to the hon. Member for Strangford on 7 June, Official Report, column 234.

  Mr. Viggers
  In both responses referred to, no account was taken of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention which was a supplementary question rather than an oral question.

  Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in recovering public funds from Mr. De Lorean.

  Mr. Viggers
  The joint receivers of the former De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd., appointed by the Government, have secured a judgment in the London High Court against Mr. John De Lorean for £30 million plus interest. Action is currently under way in the United States to enforce that judgment. In addition, the trustee of De Lorean Motor Co. in the United States bankruptcy proceedings, has recovered $9·36 million under a settlement agreement with Mr. De Lorean. The Government have a significant interest in any distributions the trustee may make.

  The Government also have direct and indirect interests in the outcome of legal actions against a number of other persons in relation to the De Lorean case.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit (Publicity Campaign)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of family credit have been made to first-time claimants in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of the county of South Yorkshire during his Department's eight-week advertising campaign; how many awards were made in the eight weeks previous to the campaign; and what percentage change of take-up by new claimants this represents since the family credit scheme began.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available on a local basis. However, we do know that at the beginning of April 1989 the number of families receiving family credit who, at the time their awards were made, were living in the areas covered by the relevant local social security offices was as follows:

  Number

  Doncaster (East)

  838

  Doncaster (West)

  504

  Wath-on-Dearne

  211

  This information will be updated from time to time.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 17 April concerning Mr. D. MacKinnon of Greenock;

  (2) when he hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 27 April concerning Mr. A. R. Young of Port Glasgow;

  (3) when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 27 April concerning Mr. J. 0. O'Connor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Replies were sent on 22 May to the hon. Member's letter of 27 April concerning Mr. J. O'Connor, and on 14 June to the hon. Member's letters of 17 April concerning Mr. D. MacKinnon and of 27 April concerning Mr. A. Young.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress so far of the work of the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund is widely regarded as a success. By 30 April the fund had received 6,124 applications. Decisions had been made on 5,642 cases, of which 2,254 had been successful. The total benefit paid amounted to nearly £1·2 million.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much Manchester offices of his Department have underspent their social fund allocations for(a) grant and (b) loans since April 1988; and what proportion of their budget for each purpose such underspending represents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information is available from the details held in the Library.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations the Minister for the Disabled has had from the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People; what reply he has sent or will he sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I recently received a letter from Mr. Richard Wood, chairman of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, seeking a substantial increase in the Department of Health's grant to the council. Officials have since met Mr. Wood to discuss his request. I hope to reply to his letter in the near future.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many children he estimates would benefit if all those families eligible for family credit claimed it;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the number of families entitled to receive family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information about the number of families eligible for family credit relates to 1988 and is contained in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 17 March at columns 391–92. On that basis there would have been about 1·1 million children in such families, but this does not include families not already receiving family credit where someone is self-employed.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children covered by payments of family credit are receiving sums in lieu of free school meals; and what is the average sum in lieu that each received after allowing for consequent reductions in other benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Each of the children's rates in family credit incorporates cash provision in place of free school meals or free welfare milk as appropriate. In March 1989 there were 392,000 children aged five or over in family 22
  credit families and for whom the cash provision might therefore be expected to be used in place of free school meals, but otherwise the information requested is not available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Bonds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to continue his policy of the early repurchasing of Government bonds.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government will continue to operate according to the full fund rule set out in paragraph 2.23 of the 1989–90 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". The Government intend to return to a balanced budget as the norm in due course.

  Domestic Credit Control
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list European Community directives which would limit the freedom of member states to institute domestic credit control, including a deposit on the purchase of goods or a shortening of mortgage repayment schedules.

  Mr. Lilley
  No such directive has been adopted.

  PAYE
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress made on the computerisation of PAYE; and when he expects it to be in full operation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The computerisation of the PAYE system was successfully completed in October 1988 when the last tax office, centre 1 in Scotland, was converted to the new system.

  Shares (Statistics)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of shares are owned by(a) the personal sector, (b) financial companies and institutions and (c) others.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following is the information on the proportions of holdings of United Kingdom ordinary and preference shares at end 1987:

  Percentage

  (a) Personal Sector

  29

  (b) Monetary Sector and Other Financial Institutions

  57

  (c) Industrial and Commercial Companies, Public Corporations, Central Government

  14

  Income Tax
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs of collecting income tax in each of the previous five years; and if he will express each figure as a percentage of total income tax receipts and give comparative percentages where the data are available for other European Community countries and for Sweden and the United States of America.
  23
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The costs of collecting income tax in the United Kingdom, and costs as a percentage of total income tax receipts were as follows:

  Cost as percentage of total income tax receipts

  Cost (£ million)

  Percentage

  1983

  676·3

  2·17

  1984

  730·3

  2·25

  1985

  803·9

  2·27

  1986

  882·9

  2·29

  1987

  931·5

  2·25

  Comparable data for other countries are not available because of the differences in the tax system and the arrangements for administration and collection.

  Finance Bill (Clause 167)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in relation to clause 167 of the Finance Bill on instruments of variation those professional bodies or firms which have made representations(a) opposed to and (b) in favour of the principle or the detail of the clause.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have received around 130 written representations, all of which were opposed to the principle or the detail of the clause.

  EC Money (Definition)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement explaining the character and definition of Community money as referred to in paragraph 12(b) of the explanatory memorandum issued by the Paymaster General on 21 February 1989, (10449/88).

  Mr. Brooke
  The term "Community money" was used in the explanatory memorandum to refer to sums made available to the Community by member states.

  EC Finance Ministers (S'Agaro Meeting)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any conclusions were reached at the informal meeting of European Community Finance Ministers at S'Agaro on 19 to 21 May.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 12 June at column 272.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Treasury definition of a small business is for tax purposes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: There is no specific definition. Targeting of tax reliefs for small businesses is achieved by defining the relevant qualifying conditions, taking account of the particular objective. For example, to benefit from the small companies' rate of corporation tax, a company must have profits below £100,000 or, for the purposes of the marginal relief, below £500,000. The Finance Bill contains provisions to increase these limits to £150,000 and £750,000 respectively.

  Building Society Shares
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the inclusion announced on 8 June of newly floated building society shares within personal equity plan portfolios; and what he expects the level of take-up to be.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: The cost to the Exchequer is expected to be negligible. The level of take-up will depend on the number of building societies converting to plc status and the extent to which personal equity plan managers offer the new facility.

  EEC Funding
  Mr. Michael Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to estimate the level of EEC funding from social and regional grants that has been lost in each of the last five years as a result of the accumulative effect each year of the reductions in the officially declared level of United Kingdom unemployment following changes in the calculation of the unemployment figures.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The question is based on a false hypothesis. Payments from the European social and regional development funds are not directly determined by unemployment levels. In so far as, following the recent reform of the funds, eligibility for grant partly depends on rates of unemployment, the relevant rates are European Commission estimates prepared on a standardised basis to eliminate any effects of differences of statistical method between Member States or at different periods.

WALES

  In-patient Waiting Lists
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure he has for in-patient waiting lists for urgent and non-urgent cases.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest figures, published on 17 May, are contained in "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin" 1989: No. 1. They show that 2,887 urgent cases and 38,362 non-urgent cases were waiting for in-patient treatment on 30 September 1988. I am pleased to note the 20 per cent. reduction in patients waiting for urgent treatment, compared to 1987, but disappointed at the 5 per cent. increase in non-urgent cases.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ieuan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress being made in establishing training and enterprise councils in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Good progress is being made. Employers throughout Wales are responding positively to the invitation to formulate proposals for training and enterprise councils and I expect two councils to be operational early next year with a full network across Wales during 1990.

  NHS
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish detailed consultative documents setting out his proposals for implementation of changes in the Health Service in Wales which take account of special factors affecting the regions of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey).

  Cardigan Bay
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has consulted local authorities around Cardigan bay about turning the bay into a marine nature conservation area.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. It is for the Nature Conservancy Council to apply to my right hon. Friend for the designation of a marine nature reserve after consulting relevant interested parties. However, I understand that at present it has no plans to make an application in respect of the Cardigan bay area.

  Tourism (Grants)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the provision of grants for tourist projects under section 4 of the Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations from a number of interested organisations and individuals.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State when he last met the chairman of the Welsh water authority; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman on 22 May 1989. A wide range of issues were discussed.

  Welsh Arts Council
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The development corporation is making excellent progress. Some 300 acres of land has been acquired; site investigations for major land reclamation schemes are near completion; the local community has directly benefited by more than £3·5 million spent on various improvement projects. The barrage Bill can be expected to come before this House 26
  shortly, having recently been considered by a Committee in another place and approved there with one minor amendment.

  The recent agreement with Associated British Ports for the development of large areas of land in the ownership of ABP will allow quicker progress to be made with the development of this important area of the bay.

  I recently announced that, subject to parliamentary approval on the supplementary Estimate, I am providing a further £7 million this year to permit the corporation to acquire more land for development purposes.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek powers to require Welsh Water to seek planning permission for raw sewage outlets into the Bristol channel; and if he will make a statement on the different sources of pollution which enter this marine cul de sac.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, water authorities are required to obtain consents before making a discharge into the sea or water courses. Where schemes require planning permission, this is a matter for the local planning authority to determine under the Town and Country Planning Acts. With regard to sources of pollution in the Bristol channel, information on consented discharges is available on public registers held by the water authorities.

  Health Service
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of patients awaiting surgical operations in each of the Welsh district health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Waiting list information is collected centrally on the basis of the number of people waiting for admission to hospital in a particular specialty and it is not known, therefore, how many are waiting for surgical operations. Information on waiting lists is published in "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin" copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average number of patients for each county in Wales per(a) doctor and (b) general practitioner practice.

  Mr. Grist
  The requested information (as at 1 October 1987) is given in the table:

  Family Practitioner Committee

  Average number of patients per doctor1

  A verage number of patients per partnership2

  Clwyd

  1,914

  6,113

  Dyfed

  1,700

  4,774

  Gwent

  1,890

  4,930

  Gwynedd

  1,675

  4,605

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,919

  5,475

  Powys

  1,628

  6,784

  South Glamorgan

  1,887

  5,661

  West Glamorgan

  1,952

  6,108

  1 Unrestricted principals

  2 Includes single doctor practices

  Roads
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his current proposals for the improvement
  27
  of the Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth trunk road from the Shropshire/Powys border; if any studies have been carried out to estimate increases in traffic load on the road between its present time and the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Selective improvements of the A458/A483/A489/A470/A44 route are planned, and shown in "Roads in Wales 1989". The "National Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1989" published on 18 May covers this route; a major traffic survey has recently been carried out by the Department on the A483 north of Newtown.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of provision for the learning of French, German, Spanish and Italian in secondary schools in Wales; and if he will make a further statement concerning his policy for the teaching of European Community languages in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The secondary school staffing survey conducted this year will provide information on the numbers of teachers qualified to teach these languages. The national curriculum will require all pupils aged 11 to 16 to be taught a modern foreign language, and they must all be offered the opportunity to study a European Community language. I have no plans to promote the teaching of foreign languages in primary schools.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the quality of teaching and standard of educational attainment in village primary schools in Powys; and if he will make a statement concerning his policy towards village schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Wales have published a number of reports on small schools in Powys which include comments on quality of teaching and standard of educational attainment. Schools subject of reports published over the past year are:

  Penrhos County Primary School, Ystradgynlais

  Ysgol Pennant, Pen-y-Bont Fawr

  Buttington/Trewern County Primary School

  Ffynnon Gynydd Church in Wales Primary School, Glasbury

  Ysgol Trefeglwys, Llanidloes

  Crossgates County Primary School

  In addition surveys have been carried out into various aspects of provision in Powys

  Guidance on schools in rural areas is given in Welsh Office circular 20/88, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Farming
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average(a) size in hectares (b) average farm income (c) the number of farms (d) the average number of ewes and (e) the number of beef cows for upland beef and sheep farms in marginal land areas within the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are estimated to be 9,163 cattle and sheep farms in the less-favoured areas of Wales.28
  Average figures for upland beef and sheep farms are not available separately for marginal land area. Figures for all hill and upland livestock farms can be found at table 3.14 of the 1989 edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average(a) size in hectares (b) number of dairy cows kept and (c) farm income for the latest period for which he has figures for an average dairy farm in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested can be found at table 3.9 of the 1989 edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has granted permission to Amersham International to use the Ferry road tip in the Grangetown district of Cardiff for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Grist
  An authorisation has been issued to the company to dispose of very low level solid radioactive waste at Cardiff city council's waste disposal sites at Ferry road and Lamby way.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those sites within Wales that have been approved for the dumping of low level radioactive waste and state in respect of each site when approval for such use was initially granted and by which licensing authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Any waste disposal site licensed by a waste disposal authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 may receive a very low level radioactive waste where such a disposal method is permitted by the necessary authorisation issued by the Secretary of State under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  The organisations and premises specified in authorisations covering Wales are shown in the Department of the Environment/Welsh Office/Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution publication "List of Premises in England and Wales currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to dispose of Radioactive Waste" a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members there are of the Gwynedd health authority; how many are appointed by him; and of those so appointed, how many have their home residence in the Arfon borough area.

  Mr. Grist
  There are 17 members of Gwynedd health authority, including the chairman. The Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the chairman and 10 members, one of whom has a home residence in the Arfon borough area.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the milk quota allocated to Upper Wallis farm, Ambleston, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire will be transferred to Mr. B. Bevan, who is due to re-occupy the farm on 30 June.
  29
  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: Transfers of milk quota are a matter for the parties concerned. Mr. Bevan will be able to take steps to transfer the relevant quota when he resumes occupation of Upper Wallis farm. The appropriate form is available from the milk marketing board.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Namibian Refugees
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many Namibian refugees are presently located in camps in Angola and Zambia;

  (2) how many Namibian refugees were in Angola and Zambia in 1985, 1986 and 1987; and what organisations were responsible for monitoring and administering these refugees during these years;

  (3) if he has made any representations concerning the discrepancy in figures published over the last three years by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concerning the total number of Namibian refugees in Angola and Zambia and the most recent estimates of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;

  (4) when Namibian refugees, currently based in Angola and Zambia, will be returned to Namibia under the United Nations' Namibian independence plan;

  (5) which non-govermental organisations are responsible under the United Nations plan for the processing and safe return of Namibian refugees from camps in Angola and Zambia to Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has responsibility for organising the repatriation of Namibian refugees. We fully support the UNHCR operation, and are in close touch with UNHCR officials.

  No independent count of Namibian refugees in Angola and Zambia has been made. The UNHCR has operated its programme for Namibian refugees on the basis of estimates that there were 69,000 Namibian refugees in Angola and a further 7,000 in Zambia.

  By 3 June, 41,000 returnees had registered with UNHCR for return to Namibia, though the registration process was still continuing. Not included in these figures are a large number of children who are expected to remain outside Namibia to complete their schooling and armed SWAPO units who will remain in United Nations-monitored positions north of the 16th parallel in Angola.

  The repatriation operation began on 12 June and is expected to last six weeks.

  South West Africa People's Organisation
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concerning Namibians detained by the South West Africa People's Organisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government possess a list of Namibians detained by South West Africa People's Organisation; and if he will make a statement concerning the fate of Namibian refugees in Angola and Zambia;

  (3) whether Her Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to ensure that all those Namibians presently
  30
  detained by the South West Africa People's Organisation and accused of being South African spies are released and repatriated to Namibia at the earliest opportunity.

  (4) whether he has received any representations concerning the names of those Namibians detained by the South West Africa People's Organisation accused of being South African spies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are extremely concerned about the welfare of SWAPO-held detainees. Several lists of such detainees have been drawn to our attention, including one compiled by Amnesty International. We have raised the matter in our contacts with SWAPO. We have also drawn the matter to the attention of the UNHCR. The United Nations special representative for Namibia, supported by officials from the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross, has been pressing for the release of SWAPO's prisoners. Some were released last month in Angola. United Nations and ICRC staff are in contact with SWAPO to ensure that all detainees are released in accordance with the United Nations plan. We are in close touch with these organisations, and shall continue to support their efforts.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions over the last two years he or Ministers from his Department have met with senior representatives from the South West Africa People's Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have regular official and, as appropriate, ministerial contact with representatives of SWAPO. Ministers have met senior representatives of SWAPO on three occasions in the last two years.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure that the Commonwealth fellowship and training programme for Namibians will not be restricted to members of the South West Africa People's Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are concerned that all multilateral programmes for Namibia to which we contribute should be impartially administered and distributed. 'The Commonwealth programme to which my hon. Friend refers is not restricted to members of SWAPO.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the action, or intention, of any Government to provide lethal aid to any group within the resistance coalition of Cambodia, within or on the borders of that country; and what reactions or representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to any such policy.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am aware of reports that certain governments have provided, or intend to provide lethal aid to groups resisting Vietnam's illegal occupation of Cambodia. We do not plan to make representations as long as that occupation continues.

  Malta
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the agreements signed with the Government of Malta since that country's last elections.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since the May 1987 General Elections in Malta, we have signed the following agreement with the Government of Malta: "Agreement on the development of friendly relations and co-operation". The agreement was signed in Valletta on 15 March 1989.

  Jabu Ndlovu
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make diplomatic representations to the South African Government concerning the case of Jabu Ndlovu, whose home was attacked by Inkatha.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Jabu Ndlovu and her family were most regrettably among the latest victims of the long-running intra-communal conflict in Natal. We have made clear our hope that action will be taken to end the violence. We hope that recent contacts between the parties directly involved will lead to a lasting settlement.

  China
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any arms or military equipment used by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in Tiananmen Square or other parts of Beijing to kill students and protestors in June were made in the United Kingdom and officially exported to the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are not aware of any British equipment having been used to kill protestors in Peking during the recent disturbances. In my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House of 6 June, we announced a ban on arms sales to China.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has ascertained from the Government of the People's Republic of China the terms on which they would be prepared to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Although we have regularly pressed the Government of the People's Republic of China to accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they have not given us any indication of the terms on which they would be prepared to do so.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware of the conditions set by Argentina before that state will sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To the best of our knowledge the Government of Argentina has not specified conditions under which Argentina would accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the last eight countries to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty giving the date of signature in each case.
  32
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The last eight countries to accede to the non-proliferation treaty were Kiribati (succeeded on 18 April 1985), Malawi (acceded on 18 February 1986), Colombia (ratified on 8 April 1986), Trinidad and Tobago (ratified on 30 October 1986), Spain (acceded on 5 November 1987), Saudi Arabia (acceded on 3 October 1988), Bahrain (acceded on 3 November 1988) and Qatar (acceded on 3 April 1989).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will set out the respective dates on which(a) Libya, (b) Iraq, (c) Iran, (d) Syria and (e) Egypt signed the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Libya ratified the nuclear nonproliferation treaty on 26 May 1975, Iraq ratified the treaty on 29 October 1969, Iran ratified on 2 February 1970, Syria on 24 September 1969 and Egypt on 26 February 1981.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the terms of signature communicated to Her Majesty's Government, or to the other depository states for the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, by the Republic of South Africa, before South Africa will sign the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The South African Government have not set out terms to us, or, so far as we are aware, to either of the other depository Governments. On 16 August 1988, after consultations between the depository powers and South Africa had been held in Vienna, the South African Foreign Ministry stated publicly that it would sign the NPT if assured of full participation in the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government of India have indicated to the United Kingdom, or to the other two depository states for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the terms on which India would sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and what attempts have been made by Her Majesty's Government to persuade India to sign the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To the best of our knowledge the Government of India have not indicated terms on which India would accede to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). However, our views on the value of the NPT are well known to the Indian Government, and we make our position clear to them whenever suitable opportunities arise.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministers in Brussels on 29 and 30 May, and the visit of the United State Administration executive officers to the United Kingdom on 31 May to 2 June, he raised with the United States Secretaries of Defence or State the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to be held in the summer of 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. However, issues related to the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference are frequently discussed at official level.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the visit of General
  33
  Jaruzelski of Poland on 10 and 11 June, he discussed the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty fourth review conference, to be held in 1990, with members of the Polish governmental delegation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the depository states for the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty last held trilateral discussions on progress of the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The non-proliferation treaty depository powers—USA, USSR, United Kingdom—last discussed the non-proliferation treaty at the first preparatory committee, held in New York from 1 to 5 May.

  Poland
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the visit of General Jaruzelski and other Polish Government officials on 10 and 11 June, he discussed(a) the prospects of nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel cycle service sales to Poland, (b) the possibility of the sale of industrial air pollution control technology and fuel gas desulpherisation technology to Poland and (c) the possibility of the sale of combined cycle coal-gas pebble bed power plant technology to Poland.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed none of these subjects.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the possession of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, France and the United States of America.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All four countries are recognised nuclear weapons states as defined by the non-proliferation treaty. We, therefore, recognise their right to possess nuclear weapons.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new policy initiatives were put forward by the United Kingdom ambassador to the chemical weapons disarmament negotiations when they resumed on 13 June in Geneva.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I visited the conference on disarmament in Geneva on 15 June. As well as delivering a speech giving an overview of British policy, I tabled a paper on the United Kingdom's innovative work on "challenge inspections", a crucial part of the verification regime for a chemical weapons convention. This work involves a comprehensive programme of trial inspections at military facilities and is designed to test the concept of challenge inspection in practice to enable effective provisions to be elaborated. As far as we are aware, the United Kingdom is the first country to carry out such work which reflects the Government's practical, problem-solving approach to the achievement of a comprehensive and effectively verifiable, global ban on chemical weapons.

  Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom, United States and Soviet Union, as the depository states for the 1963 partial nuclear test ban treaty, last held trilateral discussions on progress of the treaty; and if he will make a statement on the future of the treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Several bilateral discussions between the depository Governments have taken place recently; we expect that they will meet trilaterally later this month, probably in Geneva.

  Kurdish People
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Iraqi embassy on the subject of the deportation of Kurds within Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I discussed the issue most recently with the Iraqi ambassador on Wednesday 14 June. I told the ambassador that we viewed with concern the latest allegations about a policy of mass resettlement of Kurds, and pressed him to allow diplomats and journalists to visit the area in question to see for themselves what the truth is.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has discussed with his partners in the European Community the question of deportations of Kurds within Iraq; and what action the European Community intends to take.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom regularly discusses such issues within the Twelve. EC Representatives in Baghdad have prepared a report on the human rights situation in Iraq.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a report compiled by the 12 European Community ambassadors in Baghdad on the subject of the deportation of Kurds within Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The EC ambassadors in Baghdad have produced a report on human rights in Iraq. We and our partners in the Twelve are studying it urgently.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the number of early-day motions tabled in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Session

  Number of EDMs.

  1970–71

  717

  1971–72

  474

  1972–73

  432

  1973–74

  174

  1974

  245

  1974–75

  759

  1975–76

  701

  1976–77

  473

  35

  Session

  Number of EDMs.

  1977–78

  607

  1978–79

  354

  1979–80

  907

  1980–81

  631

  1981–82

  716

  1982–83

  502

  1983–84

  1,060

  1984–85

  979

  1985–86

  1,262

  1986–87

  1,000

  1987–88

  1,601

  1988–89 (to date)

  984

HEALTH

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to withdraw the guidance given to regional health authorities in circular HC(81)15 to refuse appointment to community health councils of people over 70 years of age.

  Mr. Mellor
  Members of community health councils are appointed mostly by local authorities and voluntary organisations. Only one sixth are appointed by regional health authorities. Guidance in circular HC(81)15 is that appointing bodies should not appoint people over the age of 70 unless there is a special reason—such as where the appointing organisation is concerned mainly with elderly people. We have no plans to change that guidance.

  Health Care Screening
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's current priorities for screening in health care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Priorities for screening depend upon the risk for given disorders of identifiable groups in the population.

  We have established two programmes to screen women regularly for breast and cervical cancers. Women aged between 20 and 64 will be invited for a cervical smear test at least every five years and women 50 and 64 years for breast X-ray (mammogram) every three years; breast screening will also be available to women aged 65 and over on request.

  Besides routine antenatal care, screening may be offered, for example, to pregnant women for foetal neural tube defects and chromosomal abnormalities (in older mothers) and, for women from certain ethnic groups, the haemoglobinopathies. There are continuing programmes for systematic screening of infants and children for sensory, physical and mental impairments. In addition, screening for single gene disorders may be appropriate for certain families.

  New opportunities for worthwhile screening will undoubtedly arise as a result of the development of new technologies in for example genetics and ultra sound. We also support the cancer screening evaluation unit which provides advice on existing and possible future schemes of screening for cancer.

  Screening, of course, is not the only method by which ill health can be prevented.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the amount of financial help given by his Department towards the cost of the salary regrading of midwives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of £731 million was made available by the Government to meet the cost of the nurses, midwives and health visitors regrading exercise in 1988–89 in England. Including the extra £98 million announced on 21 October, this met the extra cost in full. Health authorities' own estimates provided the basis of the costing, but these were not required to be broken down between nurses, midwives and health visitors on a national basis. We do not therefore hold this information centrally.

  Remand System
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to fund secure accommodation for remanded juveniles from Doncaster and neighbouring areas awaiting their court appearance who because of their behaviour are unsuitable for living in normal open local authority children's homes.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) on 16 May 1989, at column 151.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the procedures before any hospital opts out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mr. Mellor
  Self-governing trusts will not opt out but will remain fully within the NHS. Subject to the passing of the necessary legislation, decisions on applications will rest with the Secretary of State. The application process will follow the outline in the White Paper "Working for Patients". We are issuing information about the process in connection with a national conference on self-governing hospitals on 20 June.

  NML Presentations Ltd.
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement NML Presentations Ltd. had in identifying doctors who favoured the proposals in the Government's National Health Service review and putting the news media in contact with them at the time of the original launch.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he assessed the success of the contributions made by NML Presentations Ltd. to the original launch of the National Health Service review before awarding them the contract for the current stage of the programme.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were assisted by his Department to
  37
  withdraw from benzodiazepines in drug and alcohol treatment centres in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the cost of this.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom economy, in terms of lost production and sick pay, through people addicted to benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have the information to enable us to make such an estimate.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has carried out studies into the number of people who become epileptic after withdrawing from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on attempts made by the pharmaceutical industry to assist people addicted to benzodiazepines to withdraw from the drug and as to whether any compensation scheme is being considered by the industry.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no information on attempts made by the pharmaceutical industry to assist people addicted to benzodiazepines to withdraw from the drugs.

  It must be for the pharmaceutical industry to decide whether it wishes to set up its own no-fault compensation scheme.

  Social Work Staff
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to overcome the national shortage of qualified social workers highlighted in the social services employment survey 1988 published by the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) today.

  The report of the national work force survey conducted by the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board and ADSS will be given full consideration when received. The response by local authorities to our two training support programmes targeted at staff working with elderly people and those working in the field of child care, indicates that many social service departments will be enabled to increase significantly the number of their staff seconded to social work qualifying courses.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will bring forward proposals to give financial assistance to local authorities in London to enable them to recruit social work staff;

  (2) what action he is taking to deal with the nationwide shortage of 2,200 social workers identified in the recent Association of Directors of Social Services national work force survey, a copy of which he has been sent;

  (3) what action he is taking to encourage people re-entering the work force to undertake professional social work training;

  (4) what action he is taking to respond to the need for an additional 800 per annum social work training places
  38
  identified by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in its 1987–88 annual report, a copy of which has been sent to him;

  (5) what initiatives he is taking to deal with the particular problems arising in the London area as a result of the inability to recruit basic grade social workers.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) today.

  The Government and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work are taking a number of initiatives to improve the present system of social work qualifying training which will help to ensure that social work continues to attract suitable people of different ages and domestic circumstances and from a variety of social backgrounds.

  The availability of places on social work courses is a matter which is currently being examined by the Department in connection with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Our two training support programmes targeted at staff working with elderly people and those working in the field of child care have enabled many social services departments to increase significantly the number of their staff seconded to social work qualifying courses.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the age structure of those employed by local authorities as basic grade social workers.

  Mr. Mellor
  We understand that information is contained in the report of the national work force survey conducted by the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board and the Association of Directors of Social Services. We have not yet had an opportunity to study a copy of the full report.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to deal with the shortage of basic social work staff in London;

  (2) if he has any plans to increase finance for encouraging the recruitment of social services staff in London local authorities;

  (3) what information he has about the shortage of mainstream social services professionals in London local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: A survey of the London social services work force was carried out by the London branch of the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) with the assistance of the social services inspectorate. The results were published in April 1988. A new national work force survey, conducted by the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board and ADSS was published on 12 June 1989. Officials of the Department of Health have not had the opportunity to study the full copy of the report.

  We are aware of the problems faced by some local authorities in London in attracting and retaining suitably qualified staff and of the steps they, as employers, are taking to improve the position. It is of course for individual authorities to decide how much to spend on social services from within total resources available.

  Financial pressures on local authority social services, such as the need to encourage recruitment of social services staff, are taken into account in setting the overall level of

  39
  central Government support to local authorities. The Government are currently considering the local authority associations' report on additional financial needs for social services departments in 1990–91 in which this issue is
  40
  identified. This report, along with similar reports for other local authority services, is being discussed through the normal consultation channels under the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to deal with the nationwide shortage of 250 occupational therapists identified in the recent Association of Directors of Social Services national work force survey, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have taken a number of measures to overcome the shortage of occupational therapists which affects local authorities and the NHS. We are on course to increase the annual intake of occupational therapy students for three-year-diploma courses by at least 100 by 1990–91. The Department is also assisting in funding shortened two-year courses for graduates in related disciplines to qualify as occupational therapists. We have also commissioned a review of the manpower, skill mix and structures within local authority and NHS occupational therapy departments, and a report is expected in August.

  We are in communication with local authority representatives to encourage local authorities to make a greater contribution to the cost of training occupational therapists. We are also aware that a number of local authorities are pursuing their own local strategies to overcome staff shortages.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the number of occupational therapists employed by London local authorities in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: The numbers of qualified occupational therapists employed by local authorities in London for 1985–87 (the last three years for which information is available) expressed as whole-time equivalents is given in the table. These figures reflect an increase of 24 per cent. in whole-time equivalent staff employed.

  Qualified occupational therapists employed by local authority social services departments in London, 1985–87

  As at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents

  1985

  256·5

  1986

  272·1

  1987

  317·6

  Dairy

  Environmental Health Depart men!

  First DH contact with Environmental Health Department

  First visit to dairy (with details of prior contact where appropriate)

  Number of EHOs in post

  EHO establishment

  Yieldingtree Packers

  Wyre Forest

  13 June, morning via Bromsgrove

  14 June, 9 am

  6

  7

  Grange Farm

  South Buckinghamshire

  12 June, evening

  13 June, 9.40 am

  4

  6

  Battledene Farm

  Cotswold

  12 June, evening

  14 June, 5.00 pm (telephone 12 June, 7.30 pm)

  8

  8

  Lord Crathorne

  Hambleton

  12 June, evening

  13 June, 10 am (telephone 12 June, 7 pm)

  10

  10

  Stock Meadows

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  12 June, evening

  13 June, 10.30 am

  9

  9

  Ann Forshaws

  Dibble Valley

  11 June, evening

  12 June, 11.30 am (telephone 11 June, evening)

  8

  8

  Madresfield Dairy

  Malvern Hills

  13 June, morning

  13 June, 11 am

  11

  11

  Bodfan Foods

  Chester

  13 June, evening

  13 June, 9 am1

  16

  16

  1 A further visit was made 14 June, 9 am, following the Department's telephone call.

  42
  Note: Figures for 1986 and 1987 are provisional and subject to revision.

  Botulism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when each of the eight additional dairies referred to by him in Official Report, column 703, 13 June, were first informed that their products were part of the investigations by his Department into the botulism outbreak;

  (2) how many environmental health officers are employed by each of the public health authorities for the areas where the additional dairies mentioned in Official Report, column 703, 13 June, are located; and whether each number represents the full complement;

  (3) if he will state the date, time and how the public health authorities for the areas where the additional dairies he referred to in Official Report, column 703, 13 June, are located, were first contacted about the botulism outbreak and informed about the connection with Young Fruits Ltd. and the dairy in their area;

  (4) if he will state the day and date that environmental officers visited each of the eight dairies mentioned in Official Report, column 703, 13 June, to arrange for the imediate withdrawal of hazelnut yoghurt manufactured by them;

  (5) what his Department's procedures are for keeping the proprietor of Young Fruits Ltd., the 10 dairies concerned and the public informed about each stage of the investigation into suspected botulism; and if all relevant persons are immediately and fully informed of any findings.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department keeps the public informed by means of press statements. Contact with food processing firms and dairies will normally be through environmental health departments. Other information requested is set out in the table.

  NHS Staff (Upgrading)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the practice of his Department on whether upgrading of National Health Service staff approved by the Whitley Council joint secretaries is backdated to the date of application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: Cases which are, under Whitley council agreements appropriate for decision by the joint secretaries are considered on their merits.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Extensification
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce his proposals for the implementation of the Community extensification scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends and I are today issuing to interested organisations for comment a document containing ideas for pilot extensification schemes for beef, which we are obliged to introduce this year under the terms of Community legislation and also for sheep. The concept of extensification, essentially securing lower output from the same land area, has some attractions in principle but it is extremely difficult to apply in a manner which ensures effective control and value for money for the taxpayer, particularly in the livestock sector to which, under the Community legislation, we are required to accord priority. The Government therefore consider it essential to try out extensification initially on a limited pilot basis in order to determine how, and indeed whether, extensification can best be introduced without undue cost and complexity of administration and monitoring.

  I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Library. Before reaching final decisions on the nature of the pilot schemes, the Government will take account of comments, which should reach Agricultural departments by 25 August.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of land currently in set-aside is tenanted.

  Mr. Ryder
  Twenty-three per cent. of existing scheme participants have holdings which are wholly tenanted and a further 12 per cent. have some tenanted land. Information on the area of land concerned is not available.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the distribution by county in England and Wales and by region in Scotland of land approved for inclusion in the farm woodland scheme and the amount of such land on which forestry operations have commenced.

  Mr. Ryder
  As at 16 June 1989, our computer record shows the information for England as follows:
  44

  County

  Hectares

  Avon

  5

  Bedfordshire

  16

  Berkshire

  27

  Buckinghamshire

  50

  Cleveland

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  96

  Cheshire

  23

  Cornwall

  15

  Cumbria

  42

  Derbyshire

  17

  Devon

  156

  Dorset

  85

  Durham

  3

  Essex

  54

  Gloucestershire

  171

  Hampshire

  24

  Hereford and Worcester

  167

  Hertfordshire

  6

  Humberside

  59

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  24

  Lancashire

  0

  Leicestershire

  24

  Lincolnshire

  29

  Greater London

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  West Midlands

  3

  Norfolk

  297

  Northamptonshire

  120

  Northumberland

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  25

  Oxfordshire

  163

  Shropshire

  23

  Somerset

  55

  Staffordshire

  19

  Suffolk

  201

  Surrey

  0

  East Sussex

  12

  West Sussex

  15

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  Warwickshire

  26

  Wiltshire

  92

  North Yorkshire

  87

  South Yorkshire

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  No details of the area planted are yet available. The situations in Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land currently in set-aside has been the subject of applications for planting grant from the Forestry Commission; how much has been approved for planting; and in respect of how much land grant has been paid.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Up to 31 March 1989, the Forestry Commission had received applications under the woodland grant scheme for the planting of 70 hectares of land under set-aside in Enland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave the information called for in the other parts of this question in his reply to the hon. Member on 15 June 1989 at column 20.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has any information
  45
  on the levels in fish and eels in inland waters of dieldrin and aldrin; what are the levels of these which are safe; and if he will prohibit the use of these chemicals forthwith.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my Department's press notices of 20 October 1988 (No 409/88) and 18 May 1989 (204/89).

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to continue to prevent the use of dieldrin or aldrin in the production of daffodils.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to propose that the recent ban on the use of aldrin should be reconsidered, and I have taken steps to ensure safe disposal of unused stocks. The ban will be strictly enforced by Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate, which reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Fruit Growers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received the results of the poll of growers conducted as part of the quinquennial review of the Apple and Pear Development Council.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply of 8 March]: A poll held in February as part of the statutory review showed that a clear majority of apple and pear growers were opposed to the continuance of the APDC. At the request of growers' organisations, a second poll was held by them in May. It did not form part of the statutory review but was conducted in the same way and among the same growers. The poll showed that, whilst the majority of growers believed that the commercial functions of the APDC should in future be handled by the industry itself, they would support a new statutory council exercising a more limited range of functions, in particular those connected with R and D.

  My noble Friend has therefore decided that the APDC should be wound up. At the same time, my noble Friend has decided a new statutory council should be set up principally to promote and finance R and D in apple and pear growing and to represent the views of growers on matters of importance to them. She will be holding further discussions with growers' representatives on the more detailed provisions and arrangements relating to this new Council. She intends that it should run for three years, after which it will be subject to statutory review. The approval of Parliament is required for these measures and a statutory instrument will be laid before both Houses once discussions with growers' representatives have been completed.

  My noble Friend would like to express the Government's appreciation, which I am sure is shared by fruit growers themselves, to the chairman, Mr. Jasper Grinling, and his colleagues on the council for the unstinted services they have given to the industry.

  Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Markets
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is intended to privatise any of the wholesale fruit and vegetable markets in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I announced in February that, in considering the options available on the future of Covent 46
  Garden market, I was commissioning an independent commercial feasibility study into the possibilities of privatisation. Work on this will commence this month.

  I have also received a joint discussion paper from the National Farmers' Union and the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades about the privatisation of local authority wholesale fruit and vegetable markets. The issues raised are extremely complex and need careful consideration. I cannot at present give any indication of the likely response.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his reply of 17 May,Official Report, column 212–23, he is able to state whether those provisions awaiting implementation on that date have now been implemented.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Details of progress on the measure awaiting implementations at 17 May are as follows:(7) Still to be implemented.
  (10, 11) Implemented. The Poultry Flocks (Collection and Handling of Eggs and Control of Vermin) Order 1989 came into force on 26 May.
  (17) To be introduced shortly.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase compensation levels for birds slaughtered due to the drop in demands for eggs after the salmonella scare.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Assistance for the culling of hens to reduce the size of the laying flock is no longer available. The closing date for applications under the slaughter of hens scheme was 5 January 1989. This was an exceptional short-term measure to assist the industry when the egg market suffered severe disruption at the end of last year. The market has now stabilised, and the Government have no plans for further aid.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to place a contract with an advertising agency to explain the implications to the public of food irradiation; and what information he has on present public attitudes towards irradiation treated foodstuffs.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no such plans. I naturally ensure that I am well informed on public attitudes to all matters for which I am responsible.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how he intends to allocate the £6 million available to Britain from the new European forestry proposals adopted at the May Council of Ministers meeting;

  (2) what savings will accrue to his Department by the adoption by the Council of Ministers of farm forestry proposals to make available European financed premia for the growing of trees on farmland.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding reply 16 June 1989]: The amount of afforestation that takes place on agricultural land—under Forestry Commission grant schemes, their

  47
  Northern Ireland equivalent and the farm woodland scheme—will determine the scale of reimbursements that the United Kingdom will be able to claim each year from the European Community.

  Parliamentary approval will be sought to appropriate the receipts in aid of the votes from which the planting grants and annual payments are funded. The receipts should therefore contribute towards the overall costs of support for forestry and agriculture.

  New Forest (Hunting Days)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Forestry Commission is proposing to take in respect of the recommendations of the New Forest Review Group that there be a reduction in the number of hunting days in the New Forest.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding reply 16 June 1989]: The report of the New Forest review group is still being considered. It would therefore be premature to speculate on what action the Forestry Commission might decide to take on the recommendation concerning the number of hunting days.

  Hydatid Disease
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many known cases of hydatidosis in humans there were in each of the years from 1979 to 1988; and if he will make a statement concerning his policy for the eradication of hydatid disease;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce a system of free supply of medication for the eradication from dogs of hydatid disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The communicable disease surveillance centre at Colindale has received reports of the following numbers of cases of hydatid disease in humans.

  Number

  1979

  5

  1980

  6

  1981

  8

  1982

  6

  1983

  22

  1984

  10

  1985

  12

  1986

  26

  1987

  20

  1988

  not yet available

  My Department will co-operate with relevant health authorities to deal with hydatid disease in areas where this poses a risk to human health. I have no plans to introduce an eradication policy for this disease but would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 6 June, column 12–13.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Richard Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average(a) rise in hectares, (b) number of dairy cows kept and (c) farm income for the latest period for which he has figures for an average dairy farm in England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested can be found in table 3.9 of the 1989 edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 12 June,Official Report, column 298, whether the suspected cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy at markets were all identified by veterinary inspection; and how many of the cases identified at slaughterhouses were located at (a) European Economic Community-approved and (b) non-European Economic Community-approved slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The 18 suspected cases of BSE identified at markets were inspected by Ministry veterinary staff, having been reported to the Ministry by various individuals at the markets. The information requested about the status of the slaughterhouses is not available for the period in question. Arrangements have been made to record this information in future.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report, a table showing the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy for each county in England and Wales for the four-week period ended 16 June.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is given in the table:

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Avon

  7

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Berkshire

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  13

  Clwyd

  7

  Cornwall

  33

  Cumbria

  12

  Derbyshire

  7

  Devon

  64

  Dorset

  45

  Durham

  3

  Dyfed

  23

  Essex

  1

  Glamorgan, Mid

  1

  Glamorgan, West

  1

  Gloucestershire

  12

  Gwent

  4

  Gwynedd

  4

  Hampshire

  18

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  11

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  3

  Kent

  14

  Lancashire

  1

  Leicestershire

  12

  Lincolnshire

  6

  Manchester

  1

  Norfolk

  4

  Northamptonshire

  5

  Northumberland

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Oxon

  5

  Powys

  9

  Salop

  16

  Somerset

  45

  Staffordshire

  5

  Suffolk

  3

  Surrey

  4

  Sussex, East

  4

  Sussex, West

  13

  Warwickshire

  5

  49

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Wiltshire

  28

  Yorkshire, North

  6

  Yorkshire, West

  1

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will be proposing in connection with the United Kingdom fishing industry at the Council of Ministers meeting during the current month.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There are a number of issues of concern to the industry which I expect to be discussed by the Council, including the state of stocks, Channel cod and other precautionary TACs, quota hopping and beam trawling within 12 miles.

SCOTLAND

  Homelessness
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households were accepted as homeless by the City of Glasgow, Midlothian and Inverclyde for each quarter of 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of information thus far returned by authorities, applicant households assessed as homeless by the authorities concerned are shown in the following table.

  Applicant households assessed by local authorities as homeless: 1988

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  City of Glasgow

  335

  271

  313

  184

  Midlothian

  30

  31

  18

  26

  Inverclyde

  40

  26

  33

  15

  Because of different definitions and a different basis of compilation this information is not comparable with statistics of households accepted as homeless in England.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of local authority accommodation is empty in the City of Glasgow, Midlothian and Inverclyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table shows the percentage of local authority dwelling stock which was vacant at 31 March 1989:

  Percentage

  City of Glasgow

  4·1

  Midlothian

  0·9

  Inverclyde

  3·0

  These percentages include dwellings which are unavailable for letting because they are awaiting or undergoing improvement, being held to accommodate households decanted during repair, or awaiting demolition.

  RSSPCC
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sums of money given to the Royal Scottish 50
  Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in each of the past 10 years; for what purposes these sums were provided; what percentage of the RSSPCC's annual general income they represented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1979 we have provided grants to the society under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the National Health (Scotland) Act 1968 and the National Health (Scotland) Act 1978 in support of its headquarters and regional activities, personal training and special projects such as the child sexual abuse project at Overnewton. The amounts and the percentage these represent of the Society's income are as follows:

  Amount of grant (£ thousand)

  Percentage of income

  1979–80

  80

  15·8

  1980–81

  93

  14·8

  1981–82

  100

  18·0

  1982–83

  126

  21·6

  1983–84

  133

  22·0

  1984–85

  106

  10·5

  1985–86

  111

  11·0

  1986–87

  107

  11·3

  1987–88

  108

  10·3

  1988–89

  137

  7·9

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money have been given to the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for the purposes of training RSSPCC personnel in each of the past 10 years; how much money is to be provided in each of the next three years for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table lists payments made to the RSSPCC for training purposes between the years 1982–83 and 1987–88. Between 1979–80 and 1981–82 no specific training grant was awarded. From 1985–86 payments were made on a reducing scale in keeping with the pump priming purpose of the grant. No training grant has been given since 1987–88 and no new applications have been received.

  Training grant to RSSPCC (£)

  Year

  Amount

  1979–80

  —

  1980–81

  —

  1981–82

  —

  1982–83

  17,000

  1983–84

  13,367

  1984–85

  17,723

  1985–86

  18,278

  1986–87

  211,963

  1987–88

  39,367

  1 From September.

  2 Reduced rate 75 per cent.

  3 Reduced rate 50 per cent.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 29 March to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health concerning Scottish hospices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I will write to the hon. Member very shortly.
  51
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 17 April to the Minister of State regarding Mr. James Laing and the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  I have replied to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 3 May to the Minister of State regarding Mrs. I. Todd of Greenock.

  Mr. Lang
  I have replied to the hon. Member.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any Ministers or officials in his Department attended the 30th anniversary celebration, on 12 May, of British Nuclear Fuels Chapelcross plutonium and tritium production reactors in Annan.

  Mr. Lang
  One official, from the Industry Department for Scotland, was among the guests at the function held on 12 May to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Chapelcross power station.

  Policewomen
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will obtain a copy of the research on policewomen in Scotland carried out by Professor Roy Wilkie of the university of Strathclyde centre for policy studies for his departmental library as soon as it becomes available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the submissions of expressions of interest in self-governing status in the Health Service giving in each case the body or individual responsible for such expression of interest.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 12 June at column 343.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Authorities (Land Ownership)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land are in the ownership of(a) the Yorkshire water authority and (b) the Severn-Trent water authority; and, of these, how many have outline planning permission, and in respect of how many the authority is currently seeking such permission.

  Mr. Howard
  The Yorkshire water authority owns or has an interest in aproximately 70,000 acres of land. About 90 acres of this land has outline planning permission for development. Applications for outline planning permission for approximately 10 acres of land are currently outstanding. The Severn-Trent water authority owns or has an interest in approximately 44,000 acres of land. About 100 acres have outline planning permission for development. Outline planning permission is being sought for between 50 and 100 acres.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, further to his answer of 19 April about average domestic water rate bills,Official Report, column 233, the relevant data for 1989–90 are now available.

  Mr. Howard
  The average domestic water rate bill in the Thames water authority area for 1989–90 is £100·80; The average bill for all water authorities is £119·00. That represents a real increase of 33·6 per cent. in the average bill in the Thames area, and 45·2 per cent. nationally, since 1979–80.

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

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 June at column 316.

  Non-ionising Radiation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been done into the effects of non-ionising radiation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Wide-ranging studies have been carried out over the last 20 years in many countries, including the United Kingdom, on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation. Currently the National Radiological Protection Board is undertaking a wide-ranging review of these studies. This review should be published before the end of the year.

  Bristol Channel (Sewage Outlets)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to require Wessex Water and South West Water to seek planning permission for raw sewage outlets into the Bristol channel; and if he will make a statement on the different sources of pollution which enter this marine cul de sac.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, water authorities are required to obtain consent before making a discharge into the sea or water courses. Where schemes require planning permission, this is a matter for the local planning authority to determine under the Town and Country Planning Acts. With regard to sources of pollution in the Bristol channel, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 6 June at column 90.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the leaflets issued in connection with the Water Bill and the community charge, together with the print runs and costs of production of each leaflet, their main avenues of distribution and their estimated costs of distribution.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am writing to the hon. Member with the detailed information he requests.

  Sewage Works (Quality Controls)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the proposals he has received for the relaxation of quality controls for sewage works in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave on 11 May at column 520. Applications for these works are being advertised in local newspapers in the areas concerned.

  Norfolk House, East Kilbride
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for Norfolk house, East Kilbride.

  Mr. Chope
  Norfolk house is still on the market for disposal.

  Green Belt (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to release land from the green belt in north-east Derbyshire for opencast mining or other purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's policy on green belts is set out in the Department of the Environment's planning policy guidance note No. 2. Paragraph 15 of that guidance makes clear that minerals can be worked only where they are found. Their extraction need not be incompatible with green belt objectives, provided that high environmental standards are maintained and that the site is well restored, but each case must be considered on its merits.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has given water authorities on estimating the costs of complying with the legal standards for pesticides and nitrates laid down in EC directive 80/778/EEC.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department is asking water authorities to estimate the cost of complying with the pesticides and nitrate standards in EC directive 80/778/EEC, in the context of setting initial K (the initial price-increase limit) and identifying further items of expenditure (cost pass-through). For nitrate all cost of achieving compliance will be in initial K, while for pesticides some will be in K and some in cost pass-through.

  East Beach, Shoeburyness
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to include east beach, Shoeburyness within the scope of the bathing water directive.

  Mr. Howard
  The range of facilities at the beach and the degree of use of the water at east beach, Shoeburyness bring this bathing water within the scope of the directive and I am pleased to announce that we have now identified it for the purposes of the directive.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) his and (b) the EC's policy on
  54
  involving non-EC European countries in the common measures to protect the environment against acid rain, water pollution, chlorofluorocarbons, and similar dangers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the European Community that measures to protect the environment should be taken at the most appropriate level for the problem addressed, whether by individual member states, by the Community as a whole or in a wider context. The United Kingdom and EC play a leading role in developing a common approach with other European countries in such bodies as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the United Nations environment programme.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when details of the top-up payments for farmers who undertake to bring about environmental improvements on set-aside land will be announced.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of the Countryside Premium for set-aside land were announced today by the chairman of the Countryside Commission. The scheme will be run by the Countryside Commission, with the help of the Nature Conservancy Council and in close co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We believe it will ensure that the set-aside scheme introduced last year by MAFF will produce positive benefits for the environment. We welcome the imaginative way this scheme has been developed.

  Farmers will be invited to manage their set-aside land in ways that will benefit landscape and wildlife habitat, or provide increased recreational opportunities for the local community. Five options will be available to farmers, comprising the management of existing hedgerows or creation of new hedgerows and belts of broadleaved trees and shrubs; the creation of grassland area for the enjoyment of local people and the benefit of wildlife; the creation of habitat for suitable ground-nesting birds; the provision in selected areas of winter grazing for Brent geese; and the restoration of particularly valuable habitat in certain areas.

  The scheme will be discretionary with applications assessed on their merits. Payments to farmers will range from £45 to £120 per hectare.

  The scheme will initially be open to farmers in eastern England, in the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire and Suffolk. This is an area in which there has been a relatively high rate of take-up for set aside, and the scope for environmental improvement under the countryside premium is that much greater.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of English community charge leaflets delivered to occupants in houses in the county of Berwickshire in Scotland, on behalf of his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: It is not possible to provide a precise estimate. On the best

  55
  information available to me, however, up to 1,450 community charge leaflets may have been delivered to addresses in the former county of Berwickshire. This arose because a postal sector and certain postal addresses are common to both England and Scotland. The mailing house involved has apologised for the mistake. The Central Office of Information, which acted as our agents in this matter, is seeking an abatement of the cost. This is however likely to have been about £500. At the same time, approximately 21 million copies of the leaflets were being delivered throughout England.

  Drug Registration Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the Association of District Councils document and letter of 2 May regarding its proposed operation of a national dog registration scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment on 14 June at column 1076.

  Rottweiler Dogs
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ban the importation of Rottweilers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 June 1989]: No. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14 June in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) at column 465 on extended controls over dangerous dogs.

DEFENCE

  Project Anchor
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about project Anchor.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not familiar with any project of that name.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects that agreement will be reached on a choice of radar and avionics systems for the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As my hon. Friend knows, the choice of radar for EFA is under active consideration, and a decision will be made at the earliest opportunity. The selection of other elements of the avionics fit is being undertaken progressively.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement has been reached with his West German counterpart on further transfers of low-flying training by West German military aircraft to Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what figure has been agreed with his West German 56
  counterpart for the maximum number of low-level training flights to be conducted by the Royal Air Force over West Germany in 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of low-flying training by Royal Air Force units based in Germany has been conducted in the United Kingdom in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 10 May 1989 at column 475.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement has been reached with the United States authorities on the transfer of United States Air Force low-flying training from West Germany to Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Military Aircraft (Jettisoning)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the legislative provisions and flying regulations governing the jettisoning of(a) live weapons, (b) inert weapons, (c) fuel tanks and (d) other equipment from military aircraft in flight.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military aircraft activity over the United Kingdom and surrounding waters is carried out in accordance with comprehensive joint service regulations. These prohibit the dropping of articles over land or sea except when authorised for training or operational purposes or at the discretion of the pilot when the safety of the aircraft may be seriously endangered by not doing so.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all incidents since 1979 in which weapons, fuel tanks or other equipment have been inadvertently dropped, or deliberately jettisoned for safety reasons, from military aircraft over the United Kingdom, stating the date, location, type of aircraft and nature of the equipment dropped in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such detailed information is not held centrally and could not be collated without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Darren Francis
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to answer the letter dated 8 March from the hon. Member for South Hams about Darren Francis of 4 Victoria place, Brixham, Devon, and his discharge from the Army.

  Mr. Neubert
  As I explained in my letter of 4 April, the case is being investigated. I shall write shortly.

  Submarines (Orkney and Shetland)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British or allied submarines were in the area between Orkney and Shetland on 12 or 13 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No Royal Navy or NATO submarines were in this area at the time.

  Services (Underwear)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sets of underwear are issued per week to armed services personnel.

  Mr. Neubert
  Underwear is not issued to armed services personnel for normal everyday wear. Certain items of underwear are issued to personnel engaged in some field training, operational or specialist tasks, but information on the number of issues is not readily available.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each country to which United Kingdom armed forces are currently posted as loan service personnel; and the numbers involved for each country.

  Mr. Neubert
  As of 31 March 1989, the most recent date for which comprehensive data is readily available, there were United Kingdom loan service personnel in:

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brunei

  Dominica

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Hong Kong

  Indonesia

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lesotho

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  United Arab Emirates

  Zimbabwe

  The number in each country is confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose, and result of the recent visit to Saudi Arabia of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir David Craig.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sir David Craig visited Saudi Arabia soon after his appointment as chief of defence staff in order to familiarise himself with the defence relations between the two countries. The result has been to establish warm, personal contact between himself and the most senior members of the Saudi Defence Ministry and armed forces.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it is proposed that the first venture proposals are to be discussed with the Saudi Government offset committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The first two venture proposals developed under the A1 Yamamah economic offset programme were put to the Saudi Government offset committee for its consideration in mid-May. As announced in a news release by my Department on 26 May, the first proposal is for the establishment of a missile engineering facility in the kingdom involving British Aerospace and Dowty Rotol. Secondly, British Aerospace has expressed positive interest in participation in an aluminium smelter which may be established in Saudi Arabia.

  Command and Control System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply,Official Report, 27 April, column 663, whether he will make a statement on the policy of allowing UKSL Ltd. to choose the programming languages for the IUKADGE command and control computer ICCS and this policy's relationship with the departmental policy of standardisation on the use of the programming language ADA as the means to ensure reliability and maintainability of software; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The IUKADGE ICCS is a largely NATO-funded project and therefore subject to NATO policy direction; the NATO financial authorities, in approving the NATO contribution to IUKADGE ICCS costs, directed that existing NATO air defence ground environment (NADGE) software was to be re-used to the greatest extent possible. Neither the MOD nor NATO formally adopted ADA as the single preferred language standard for real-time defence computer applications until more than three years after the award of the IUKADGE ICCS contract to UKSL.

  NAAFI
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes tenders for the operation of civilian staff restaurants within his Department receive any subsidy from the Department beyond that available to all other tenderers and if that part of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes which submits tenders produces discreet accounts to demonstrate that its activities are not receiving subsidy from other Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes activities within his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (NAAFI) is treated no differently from other contractors invited to tender for the operation of civilian staff restaurants in MOD establishments, in that premises, equipment, power and utensils are all provided at public expense. All contractors are responsible for management, staff and labour costs, food supply, preparation and serving. Cleaning of premises is arranged under separate contracts. There is no requirement for the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to produce separate accounts of the operation of the civilian staff restaurants, which they have been contracted to operate.

  Lightning Aircraft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the service life extension programme for RAF Lightning aircraft; and how many aircraft were involved in this programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The total cost of the life extension programme for RAF Lightning aircraft was in the order of £2 million and covered 35 aircraft.

  Military Exercise (Stornoway Airport)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft from the fleet requirements and air direction unit will operate from Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise.
  59
  Mr. Neubert
  No aircraft of the fleet requirement and air direction unit are planned to operate from Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many military aircraft, other than Phantoms and Tornados, and from which units, will operate from Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise;

  (2) how many military personnel will be deployed to Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise;

  (3) how many Phantom aircraft, and from which units, will operate from Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise;

  (4) how many Tornado aircraft, and from which units, will operate from Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise;

  (5) what instructions are being issued to military pilots making use of Stornoway airport in the forthcoming military exercise concerning the carrying out of run and break manoeuvres prior to landing;

  (6) what is the planned number of military jet sorties to be flown into and out of Stornoway airport during the forthcoming military exercise (a) per day and (b) in total; and how many of these are planned to take place between the hours of 5 pm and 7 am;

  (7) what is the stipulated circuit height for military jet aircraft using Stornoway airport during periods of military control of the airfield.

  Mr. Neubert
  From 20 June to 3 July, six Tornados from No. 11 Squadron, RAF Leeming and one Sea King from No. 202 Squadron, RAF Manston, accompanied by 175 personnel, will deploy to RAF Stornoway. During 21 to 22 June and 30 June to 3 July, support will be provided by a small number of Hercules transport sorties. Between 22 to 29 June, it is planned that the Tornados will fly some 52 sorties, normally six to eight each day. An average of two sorties each day will be between 5 pm and 10.45 pm, but there will be no flying between 10.45 pm and 7 am, and no flying at all on Sunday 25 June. The Sea King helicopter will undertake a small number of sorties as required.

  All flying will be conducted in accordance with normal RAF regulations. Aircrew will be briefed fully on local conditions. The stipulated circuit height for Tornados flying the Westerly circuit at Stornoway (largely over land) is 1,100 ft: for the Easterly circuit (largely over sea) it is 800 ft. With regard to run and break manoeuvres, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 10 March, Official Report, column 675.

  Service Publications Store (Woolwich Arsenal)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many publications are currently being handled by the service publications and forms store at Woolwich arsenal; how many documents are now being issued annually; and what were the comparable figures(a) five and (b) ten years earlier.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy keep forms and publications in two separate stores at Woolwich arsenal. These, together with the Army stocks at Donnington, are to be relocated to Llangennech, Dyfed by 1991.
  60
  The Air Force currently holds about 2 million copies of publications and the Navy almost one million. Some 950,000 and 250,000 copies are issued annually from the respective stores.

  Records of stock holdings and issues, five and 10 years ago, are not maintained and it would not be cost effective to research these details. Stocks of publications have, however, increased over the years and the collocation of the stores will present an opportunity to reduce stocks, rationalise systems and generally improve efficiency.

  Army (Home Owners)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of serving members of the Regular Army are home owners.

  Mr. Neubert
  The current percentage of home ownership by serving members of the Regular Army is 26·3 per cent. This figure represents 71·4 per cent. of officers and 18·4 per cent. of other ranks.

  Army (Ages)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of serving members of the Regular Army are over the age of 25 years; and what was the corresponding figure 20 years ago.

  Mr. Neubert
  Due to the availability of statistics, the latest figures we have are December 1988 to correspond with the figures of 20 years ago, December 1968. On this basis, the figures are as follows:

  Regular Army over the age of 25

  December

  Percentage

  1988

  51

  1968

  48

  Service Children (Schooling)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many boys, the sons of service personnel, have attended Crookham Court school on Ministry of Defence grants since 1974.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence does not maintain past records of the numbers of children of service personnel who have attended particular boarding schools. However, at the start of the 1988–89 academic year there were 61 children of service personnel at Crookham Court school; this number has since fallen to 32.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Service Children's Education Authority last visited Crookham Court school, Newbury, Berkshire.

  Mr. Neubert
  Crookham Court school was last visited on 8 February 1989.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether in agreeing to pay boarding school allowance for the child of service parents, his Department considers(a) the standard of education on offer and (b) the academic success achieved by a school.

  Mr. Neubert
  The criteria for the admissibility of a school for service boarding school allowance purposes
  61
  were given in written answer on 9 June, at column 257. These criteria do not take account of the academic success rate, since this is a matter for parents to consider in the light of their children's abilities. The standard of education must, however, be comparable to that available within the state system.

  Malaysia (Arms Sales)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of arms sales by the United Kigdom to Malaysia for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The value of major arms sales by the United Kingdom to Malaysia for the last five years, as reported to the Ministry of Defence, is:

  Year

  £ million

  1984

  4·3

  1985

  nil

  1986

  3·3

  1987

  2·1

  1988

  16·0

  Total

  25·7

  AWRE (Safety)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the environmental and safety improvements that have been instituted(a) at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston and (b) at other atomic weapons research establishment facilities since the Pochin report.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Pochin report related to radiological health and safety specifically at Aldermaston. Since the report, AWE has taken remedial action to deal with the deficiencies found, and has made changes including the training of staff; recruitment and deployment of specialist health and safety, engineering and support staff; continuing additions to the personnel radiation monitoring programmes as modern technology advances; and the addition of a substantial environmental monitoring programme around all AWE sites.

  Anti-Nuclear Weapons Protest Groups
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during the meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers in Brussels on 8–9 June, the views and role of anti-nuclear weapons protest groups was discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volumes of toxic wastes are present at the Ministry of Defence, atomic weapons establishment or Royal Ordnance factories at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Caerwent and HMS Vulcan; what storage and disposal facilities exist for these wastes; and what health and safety provisions cover the wastes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not the practice to give details of the quantities of radioactive and other toxic waste substances held at MOD premises. Any such wastes are held temporarily in appropriate containers and storage buildings until they can be disposed of safely in accordance with legislative commitments. While being stored, the wastes are subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Disposal is subject to agreement with relevant environmental regulatory departments (Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and, where relevant, the Welsh Office and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland). Transport of wastes is subject to regulatory measures of the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Transport.

  Equestrian Activities
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those official equestrian activities which are supported by public funds.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following equestrian activities are supported from public funds:

  Ceremonial and public duties

  Equitation training

  National and NATO service competitions.

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

Divorce Law
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the context of their proposed reforms of the legal system, they intend to make any changes in the law relating to divorce.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government are undertaking a rolling programme of review of family law and will consider the law of divorce in the context of that review and in the light of the report of the Law Commission expected later this year. It would be premature to form any view of the future of divorce law ahead of that report.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. It will give encouragement to solicitors and barristers, who have been of the opinion that gradually over the years the implementation of the current Act has been biased against men. A source of concern to lawyers is that the legislation might be a contributory factor to the incredible rise in suicides by men involved in divorce.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am particularly heartened that my reply might give some encouragement to solicitors and barristers. Certainly the matters to which the noble Lord has referred are of great importance and I have no doubt that they will figure in the Law Commission's report.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, given that a new Family Policy Studies Centre survey has found
2
that Britain now has the highest divorce rate in Europe, what plans do the Government have to provide for the improvement of the situation of the single parent as a matter of urgency, particularly in relation to housing and financial provision?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course there are many consequences of divorce. However, the Question concerns primarily the law relating to divorce. Perhaps the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The rate of divorce in this country is a cause of great concern. I have no doubt that that aspect of the matter will be taken into account in the Law Commission's report. It is one thing to notice a serious matter of that kind; it is rather more difficult to prescribe an effective cure for it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the matter of prescribing an effective cure, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that our present divorce laws are too lax?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a very difficult question. Once a married couple have decided to part it is difficult to know what place there is for the tremendously complicated and lengthy procedures which follow. Whether tightening up the law would reduce the divorce rate is open to question. I very much believe that good divorce law should reinforce the institution of marriage rather than tend to destroy it. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Law Commission canvassed, among other things, a proposal that all the ancillary matters arising out of a divorce should be decided upon and settled before the divorce was granted. In a sense that is the type of tightening up which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. It is certainly a proposal for further consideration. I shall be most interested to see what the Law Commission ultimately decides when it submits its report in the light of the full consultation which it has had.

University and Polytechnic Library Spending
2.40 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they intend to do about the decline in spending by university and polytechnic libraries shown in figures recently published by Book Trust (University and Polytechnic Libraries—Book and Journal Spending: A Report).
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government cannot accept the picture painted by the Book Trust's report. The facts are that over the period 1980–81 to 1986–87 universities' expenditure on books and periodicals increased by some 15 per cent. above the standard measure of inflation. On the same basis, there was a 10 per cent. real terms increase in polytechnics' expenditure on text and library books.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I look upon his reply with a good deal of scepticism? I wonder whether he has read the report and is aware that the Minister responsible for higher education, Mr. Jackson, stated in a letter to the University, College and Professional Publishers Council in May last year:
"Research has in general been more severely affected than teaching by the squeeze on library resources in recent years".
He admits that there has been a squeeze and that it has affected both teaching and research. Is the Minister also aware that the British Library also conducted a survey and that its results, appearing last year, confirm in no uncertain terms that damage is being done to research and that the morale of those taking part in academic research has been lowered?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is slightly sceptical about my original Answer. I should remind her that the Universities Funding Council has inherited a UGC initiative for a £9 million programme over the three years from 1987–88 for the purchase of books and periodicals. The first signs are that this initiative has helped to achieve a substantial upturn in expenditure on libraries. It would have been good had this been acknowledged by the Book Trust's report.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that by saying that the Book Trust's report was from 1978–79 to 1986–87. Since the noble Viscount has referred to the extra £3 million, can he say whether expenditure rose by the sum that it should have risen by? Have the Government any plans for similar additional allocations beyond 1990?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, universities' income from the Universities Funding Council in 1989–90 is 8·5 per cent. higher in real terms than was the income in 1980–81 from its predecessor, the University Grants Committee. I remind your Lordships that during last year's passage through this House of what became the Education Reform Act the Government were at pains to assure your Lordships that we did not aim to intervene in the
4
internal affairs of institutions. Decisions on priorities are essentially for the institutions themselves.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the period covered by the report average academic book prices rose by over 40 per cent. and the price of periodicals used in universities by just under 70 per cent? In these circumstances does the Minister not agree that the increase in the universities' recurrent grant for spending on libraries is totally inadequate to allow them to catch up and to maintain standards in their libraries? Is he further aware that the Minister responsible for higher education has now admitted that there is a serious brain drain, not just of scientists, but also of social scientists and academics working in the humanities who are highly dependent on books both for teaching and research? Those academics are being driven out of the country by the deplorable state of academic libraries.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe we are talking about two different things. Higher priced books and other price rises are taken into account in determining, with the advice of the funding council, the overall public funding levels. However, I see no advantage in linking library funding to book prices as that would simply fuel price increases.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how does the noble Viscount explain his optimistic view of what has been going on when the Blackwell journal index shows a 25 per cent. cut in periodicals and a reduction of over 30 per cent. funding at Belfast, Birmingham, Cambridge and Dundee universities? I shall not go on because it is a very long list. There seems to be a great discrepancy between what the noble Viscount is saying and what the Blackwell journal index shows.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government do not control, nor do they intend to control, the level of expenditure on university and polytechnic libraries. That is a matter for the institutions themselves to decide and defend against their other priorities. However, it is worth noting that the evidence available to HMI shows that library provision in the polytechnics is broadly satisfactory and that staff and students are generally well supported by library holdings.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will allow me also to add a note of scepticism concerning his answer. Is he aware that almost every—I am tempted to say every—librarian in this country would reject the answers that he has just given? All are under the impression that they are making real cuts in their expenditure on books and periodicals. Did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he say that one reason why the Government do not fully finance the expenditure on libraries is that they believe that if they were to do so it would add to the pressure to raise the price of books? Was that part of the answer?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I stated that I saw no advantage in linking library funding to book prices as that would simply fuel price increases. I shall write to the noble Lord to explain that in more detail. Universities and, following the Education Reform Act, polytechnics, are autonomous institutions. It is for them to decide how to budget the substantial public and other funds at their disposal.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I ask the noble Viscount, with respect, to ensure that he writes to me about this matter. From my limited knowledge of economics and what determines prices, I find it almost unbelievable that financing university libraries would be a cause of book price inflation. Has the Minister any more information in his current briefing that might shed light on that matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I know that when economists disagree on statistics they always seem to be shaking their heads in one direction or another. However, as I said, if one links library funding to book prices per se, that will simply fuel higher prices.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these libraries have been unable to buy so many periodicals and journals because of cuts in their funding? As a result of fewer subscriptions, the price of the periodical or journal has to go up. Not enough funding is available. It is not the universities' fault if they are underfunded. If they have to cut their library subscriptions, that is because the general funding is simply not adequate.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, apart from repeating what I have already said, I think the best thing I can do is to make sure that all the exchanges today are conveyed to my honourable friend.

Heathrow: Road Congestion
2.47 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for improving the road system into and around terminals 1, 2 and 3 at London Heathrow Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has included in the current National Roads Programme improvement schemes at junctions 4 and 4a on the M4, at the A4/A312 Waggoners Corner junction, and the A4/A30 Henly's Corner junction.
He has also included in the recent White Paper a proposal for the M25 to be widened to dual four-lane standards, as well as commissioning studies to secure the best possible use of existing roads in the A4/M4 corridor, and to improve access to Heathrow from the wider south western quadrant of London.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, quite frankly,
6
I do not think it is the answer. The problem has very little to do with the national motorway system; it is primarily to do with the tunnel which leads to and from terminals 1, 2 and 3. Does not my noble friend agree that the tunnel is totally inadequate to deal with the present volume of traffic? Is my noble friend aware that on 19th May a bus broke down in the tunnel and blocked all the circulation for one hour? That resulted in some passengers who were travelling overseas losing their flights. In my opinion it is the tunnel and the circulation round the terminals which is the problem and not the motorways.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, roads within the airport boundary are, of course, the responsibility of the airport itself and not the Department of Transport. However, the airport operates a computerised urban traffic control system to aid the smooth flow of traffic through the tunnel and within the central terminal area. That system is monitored by a centrally controlled television camera. A dedicated staff is responsible for the roads at Heathrow. Further, a heavy recovery vehicle is continuously available to speed the recovery of vehicles in an emergency, or in a breakdown such as my noble friend described. I shall of course draw my noble friend's complaints to the attention of the appropriate authority and hope that something can be done to alleviate the problem.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people who have missed flights for the reasons described by the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, will not be satisfied with that reply? It may be that, technically, responsibility lies with the British Airports Authority but the public roads are also affected. Is the noble Lord aware that the incident which has been referred to is not the only one? Is he aware that my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington was involved in a similar incident a week ago yesterday when she was kept waiting in a bus for an hour and a half before she was able to leave? That was not an isolated incident, and will the Department of Transport look into the matter in more detail than it has so far?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord said that that was not an isolated incident. That may well be the case, but it is the first time in two years that my attention has been drawn to troubles of that kind. I cannot believe that there has been a great problem. However, I shall look into the situation which has been described.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the damage caused to the tourist industry by the frequent hold-ups which occur in getting into or out of Heathrow by the public road system outside it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is why in my original Answer I described some of the improvements which we propose to the public road network outside the airport.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in his first reply the Minister dealt with the position with regard to public

7
roads outside the airport. In the light of the other questions put to the Minister can he tell us what liaison there is between Heathrow Airport or the British Airports Authority and the Department of Transport? From his Answer it would appear that the liaison is rather weak, whereas surely there must be liaison with regard to public roads to the airport and roads within the airport?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the staff at Heathrow Airport maintain close liaison with the Department of Transport, the police and the local authorities involved.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does the British Airports Authority have any plans to build relief tunnels not for general use but for use when the existing tunnels are blocked in the kind of emergency described by my noble friend Lord Rodney?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to build a further tunnel. The authority does have plans to build a railway link from Paddington to Heathrow, which I hope will go forward if the authority can produce a route which will satisfy your Lordships' Select Committee.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Hong Kong they have a specially adapted forklift truck to retrieve broken down buses and similar large vehicles from the tunnel under the harbour? Does he agree that that might perhaps be a way of solving this particular problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I note my noble friend's suggestion and I shall pass it on to the appropriate people.

"Working for Patients": Amplification
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What documents they have produced or propose to produce in explanation and amplification of the White Paper Working for Patients.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in addition to the eight working papers issued in England and those issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland, a further working paper Capital Charges: Funding Issues (England) was issued at 2.30 this afternoon.
Further information on the other aspects of the White Paper will be provided in the period up to the end of 1991 for staff and, where there is a need, the public.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that there are many issues in the papers which have been published so far which are causing some confusion and people do not understand the position? For example, is he aware that in her foreword to Working for Patients the Prime Minister wrote:
"The National Health Service will continue to be available to all, regardless of income, and to be financed mainly out of general taxation"?
8
What does "mainly" mean—50 per cent., 70 per cent., 90 per cent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. As regards confusion, I am afraid that quite a lot of confusion results from the comments of the noble Lord and his colleagues, who have allowed a certain amount of misrepresentation to creep into what they have said about the White Paper. As regards the Prime Minister's comments, I can only repeat what she said: the health service will continue to be funded mainly by general taxation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, after massive rejection by the professionals working in the National Health Service, the electorate have now spoken. Does the Minister agree that all the signs are that there is a very deep sense of public concern throughout the United Kingdom about the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the National Health Service? Will he convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the view that the Government owe it to the people to think again about both the content and the timing of their proposals?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that the electorate had spoken on the subject of the National Health Service. If the noble Lord was referring to yesterday's results of the European elections, so far as I know the National Health Service was not a question in those elections.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in which case does the Minister accept that he has not followed the European elections because it was a central issue in every constitutency across the country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, the election concerned the European Parliament. The National Health Service is not a responsibility of the European Parliament. If the noble Lord takes the view that the electorate are so unsophisticated that they voted purely on the health service he has a much more cynical view of the electorate than I have.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the White Paper is set out admirably and clearly and for the most part is an admirable document on the complete reorganisation of the National Health Service? However, is he also aware that there is some concern about the timetable for implementing the White Paper proposals, particularly as they concern the hospital service? Will he given his attention to that aspect of the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for those remarks. We are aware that the timetable is tight but we believe that the health service will be able to adapt in the necessary time to the changes proposed in the White Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend was referring to the public perception of what the Government are up

9
to? Would that not be better described as working against patients rather than working for them?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. It is working for patients, as it says very clearly on the front of the document.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in stating that the elections last Thursday had nothing to do with domestic affairs and the National Health Service, he is contradicting all the Conservative spokesmen I have heard speaking on radio and television, who have said that it is a case of mid-term blues? Is he not wrong in suggesting that my noble friend is in error in saying that the British electorate have rejected out of hand the Government's policy, particularly on the National Health Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, everyone can have a different interpretation of these matters. I say that the noble Lord is wrong. There is no evidence that the public have rejected the Government's White Paper proposals. As I said, the public have been subjected to a considerable amount of misrepresentation, particularly from noble Lords and members of the noble Lord's party.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, without going into further detail, is the noble Lord aware that the results of the election were extremely satisfactory? Furthermore, does he recall the statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in a debate on Welsh affairs in another place on 1st March when he said that a working paper explaining the implications of the Government's plans would be published? Nearly four months have gone by: where is that working paper, which is keenly awaited in Wales?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is pleased with the election results. It will be a temporary blip, and it is nice that his party should have such temporary enhancements. No doubt in two or three years' time the electorate will have a chance to show what they really feel about these matters.
As regards Wales, one working paper on Wales has, I believe, beeen issued. I do not have the date and if it has not been issued I shall let the noble Lord know. However, it is my understanding that Working for Patients: The NHS in Wales—Proposals for Action has been published.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how on earth district hospitals can operate under market forces and to what extent a policy of operating hospitals under market forces appears in the health service White Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is quite another question. We have had many questions on the contents of the White Paper; we have had debates on the contents of the White Paper. The Question deals with documents that we have produced in explanation and amplification.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for the interest he has shown. However, does he agree that the National Health Service is greatly valued by the people and that we all have a responsibility to defend it and to inquire into what will happen to it? That is why people want to know what the Prime Minister meant when she said that, in future, the National Health Service will be mainly supported by taxation. How much will not be? May we be told that? The people have a right to know.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend said that it would be mainly financed by general taxation. I think that that is perfectly clear and I reiterate the Government's support for the health service.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on student top-up loans.
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 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1989 and the Set-Aside (Amendments) Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Electricity Bill
3.3 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 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Transfer of property etc. of Generating Board and Electricity Council]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 224H:
Page 47, line 24, after ("scheme") insert ("in such terms as the Secretary of State may direct (with particular reference to companies designated under paragraph (aa) and section 64(1)(b) below)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 226ZA and 228AA, both standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
We have now embarked on the second part of the Bill which deals with the restructuring of the industry

11
prior to flotation. It is the burden of my amendment that, in the last resort, the Secretary of State should be the one who decides which bits of the generating board—indeed, which bits of any organisation—go where. As I understand it, there is in the Bill as drafted only a requirement for the generating board to be directed by the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the division of all its property, rights and liabilities between the companies specified in Clause 63. It is our view that the Secretary of State should have the final say, not only in directing the generating board to make a scheme, but in saying what that scheme should contain.
That point is particularly important when we come to the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. If the nuclear industry is to be separated from the other parts of the generating industry, it seems abolutely essential that the Secretary of State should be able to decide which parts go into the new company, both in England and Wales, if that is what the Committee decides, and in Scotland, which is already in the Bill. We must have an assurance that if public control of the nuclear industry is to be maintained after the passage of the Bill, the Secretary of State will decide the limits of that public control. That is why the amendment that I am moving is grouped with amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others.
At this stage I do not want to go into the reasons for the noble Earl moving and speaking to his amendments. He is perfectly able to do that. I simply say that I personally—and, I think, my party—should have preferred the nuclear industry to be kept in toto in the public sector. Nevertheless, the noble Earl has put down an amendment which envisages what I should call the BP solution where 49 per cent. of the nuclear industry can be sold off to the public, should that be appropriate.
However, the noble Earl and I are at one in thinking that the nuclear industry needs to be kept in public control for two reasons. First, there is still widespread disquiet about the future of nuclear power. I do not believe that any noble Lord in this Committee would disagree with that comment. Secondly, I should point to the US experience. There, with a private industry operating under a very strict regulatory regime and because of environmentalist arguments, no new nuclear power stations have been commissioned in the past 10 years. Whether one is pro or anti nuclear power, it seems to me very odd that the Government are now leading us into what is potentially a US situation where the regulatory regime and the environmental lobbies are so suspicious of private industry that they will not allow those things to go ahead.
The reason we have some degree of rationality in our approach to new power stations and the inquiries that go with plans for new power stations is that the proposals are put forward and operated by the CEGB which is a public body. I believe that there is general public confidence that the CEGB will act in the public interest. I do not believe that there will be any such confidence when the industry is privatised.
I should have thought that the Government could easily accept this amendment. The concept has been ventilated quite widely in the press and was discussed in another place. Given—if I may put it in this way—some of the results that we have heard over the weekend about the strong environmental interest expressed up and down the country, I believe that, at this stage, the Government would do well to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 226ZA and 228AA to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred, perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the quality of the support that I have enlisted for the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, was once Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power: it cannot be supposed that he is ignorant of what the amendment stands for. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was once chairman of the National Coal Board: it cannot be supposed that he is ignorant of the implications of competition between fossil and nuclear fuels. Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who has just spoken, brings to our debates his usual clarity and distinction from the Opposition Front Bench.
Against me I have the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who knows very well that I hold her in the highest esteem. It is with regret that I am speaking to what the Government must consider to be a wrecking amendment at a time when she must inevitably be tired after a long, protracted Committee stage in very hot weather. If, as a result, the consequential amendments are so long drawn out that the Bill is lost for this Session, I can only say from my own point of view that that is just too bad. I want to get the answers right, not get the answers quickly.
As for myself, I have had a finger in many a nuclear pie for 51 years since 1938, when Hahn and Strassman, confirmed by Leise Meitner, established that Enrico Firmi had put the wrong interpretation on his attempts to synthesise trans-Uranic elements and that what was really going on what was what we now call nuclear fission. Niels Bohr distinguished between Uranium 238 and Uranium 235 and Curie-Joliot took out the first patent on a nuclear reactor.
All that happened between the end of November 1938 and the spring of 1939 and was published to all and sundry. By the summer of 1940, Her Majesty's Government accepted that a bomb might be feasible. At about that time I was discussing with Professor James Chadwick of Liverpool University—later to become Sir James Chadwick, Master of Gonville and Caius—what the bomb's critical size might be. Would it be a pin's head or something the size of the Queen Elizabeth? No one could tell initially. The critical parameters were measured quite quickly by Sir Rudolf Peirles who told me that the bomb was "this size", cupping his two hands together.
I shall not continue to bore the Committee with my curriculum vitae in this field; part of it is in Who's Who, part in Hansard, part in the proceedings of Sub-Committee F and in various board papers concerned with the manufacture of nuclear power

13
stations. Why am I taking the lead at this point? Before the Bill ever was, the Secretary of State sought my opinion on how to privatise electricity. I went along with what he was believed to have in mind, bar one particular. I wanted to see two equally sized fossil fuel corporations with one nuclear corporation in which the Government would have a controlling share—the so-called BP model. By contrast his solution was to fuse one nuclear power corporation with the larger of two fossil fuel corporations, leaving the smaller of the two to compete on disadvantageous terms.
I do not agree with that and my amendments give expression to my disagreement. The Committee may ask why. It is because there are too many forward unknowns with respect to nuclear power to make it a normal business risk. At this point in time if it is not a normal risk then the Governnment should not subsidise it out of fossil fuel but accept their responsibility to finance it until it comes of age. Does it come of age after 51 years? Yes, indeed.
Let us look at some of the unknowns. Torness and Heysham B have just very successfully come on stream. I learnt that Torness is now delivering 102 per cent. of its rated power to the grid. Its projected life is 30 years at 100 per cent. load factor or 40 years at 75 per cent. load factor, which is regarded as a good performance over the life of the station. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that 40 years is also the timespan of one professional career. By the time that Torness and Heysham are ready to be decommissioned all those who designed them and brought them on stream will have retired or may not even be alive.
What will happen then? Let us consider Flixborough and Bhopal, which were two chemical explosions, and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which were two nuclear explosions. Every one of those accidents was due to a plant operator intermeddling with the design without consulting the designer, who was bypassed. In 40 years' time there will be no designer left to consult and a new generation at the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The plant operators themselves will have to decommission the stations, possibly after stretching the lives of the stations a little further.
What form will the NII take in 40 years' time? That will depend upon the quality of its recruitment now. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the challenge-response situation—the syndrome which recruits the very best quality for a challenge that has to be met. It has to be maintained over a long period. A sleepy bureaucracy will not recruit the very best.
Then again we have to think of the future role of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the National Nuclear Corporation which are not provided for in this Bill. The National Nuclear Corporation is the design agency for future stations. It is a monopoly once split between the General Electric Company and Her Majesty's Government but now wholly General Electric based. The GEC basically is uninterested in nuclear boilers because it is not a boilermaker. It is interested only in selling turbo-generators, transformers and switchgear. It suits it well to subordinate itself to
14
Westinghouse-Bechtel designs as modified by the NII. So we have lost all initiative for the future. Is that what is called competition?
In case it might be thought that I was being over-critical, GEC is one of the best managed commercial concerns in industry but is the worst served scientifically. Over years long past it has lent out to usury its huge cash flow instead of spending it on research. Now in the toils it is trying to buy Plessey, which has done the research which it has not done and taken the risks that it did not take. Is GEC the agency to have the monopoly of nuclear power station design for the next 40 years? I ask the Committee that question. The Bill gives no answer.
Let us consider the future of British Nuclear Fuels. Its costs in respect of fuel preparation and spent fuel reprocessing are part of the cost of electricity generation. BNF is another government monopoly and the CEGB is already jibbing at paying for it and proposing dry storage, which will save the cost of reprocessing and leave nuclear sewage to be reprocessed by our children and grandchildren.
The recent leakage, via a straw periodical, to the Observer newspaper is typical of the in-fighting going on between the CEGB and the Government. The situation is as fraught with intrigue as a nightingale's egg is pregnant with song. Of course the CEGB, with crocodile tears in its eyes, cannot imagine how the leak happened, but as Mandy Rice-Davies said on a famous occasion in the past: It would say that, wouldn't it?
Then there is the cost of preparing bunker storage for all classes of nuclear waste. The Swedes and the French do it; the Japanese do not because they send the waste to this country and we send it back again. But the political in-fighting between central and local government in the context of planning inquiries adds yet another unknown which prevents the whole being a business proposition with NIREX and all that unprovided for.
The next unknown is the future of the fast reactor, without which nuclear power cannot come of age. The creeping philistinism of the Government now proposes to chisel on Dounreay because of its long-term character. Yet one cannot do accelerated ageing tests on materials. Both the Dounreay fast reactor and the prototype fast reactor were or are materials testing or design proving reactors. The PFR is achieving uniquely high burn-up rates compared with anything else in the world. We need to go on proving the long-term reliability of components and designs until the day when the design factor can be stretched by a factor of three, according to the late Lord Hinton—though others may go for six, which he thought was too large a jump.
Suppose we accept the ACOST recommendation that nuclear power cannot yet stand on its own feet. I reply: "Then let it get a recognised government subvention until it can, rather than be parasitic upon fossil fuel power. Fossil fuel based stations have their own problems to face—pollution and all that of one kind, where nuclear faces pollution of another kind. Do not land them with the unsolved problems of commercialised nuclear power".

15
I have studied the ACOST report with interest. Of its 19 signatories fewer than half have any connection with the manufacturing industry and fewer than half of those have any connection with the nuclear industry at all. Its prognosis of manufacturable exports is pure pie in the sky.
Let me say a few last words on what I have called "creeping philistinism" related to the tendency to fall down flat and worship the Baal of competition. I have no doubt that competition is a good means, but as such it is not an end. I have no doubt that competition between brothel-keepers would cheapen the price of their services to the patrons and get better productivity out of the girls, but that does not establish brothels as a good thing to have. As I say, competition is a means and not an end.
The problems arising out of this Bill are the inescapable involvement of Her Majesty's Government in power generation with NRI, NIREX and BNF. Intrinsically they are involved with the latter. They cannot abdicate all responsibility for the former. They cannot ask everybody else to take responsibilities in life and then abdicate their own.
I shall not rehearse my view that the decision to back the PWR was a strategic mistake. I have said it many times before and shall not waste the time of the Committee in saying it again. We are stuck with its consequences, and so are the Government. They must not—I repeat not—duck those responsibilities.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support the amendment which has been so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I must say that I am among those who were extremely surprised when the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity industry emerged to note that they did not separate off nuclear power. In fact as so often happens, they do these things better in Scotland. There the nuclear stations have been separated off—leaving aside the question of ownership to which I shall come in a moment.
Many institutions still involved in the nuclear sector are publicly owned. The nuclear sector raises many issues which the conventional power stations do not raise. I think therefore that it is entirely wrong that the nuclear station should be put together with one of the two generating stations. In my opinion it is illogical to put it with just one of the two generating stations. If the Government were serious about the competitive aspects, they would surely have divided up the nuclear sector as they have the conventional. But to put all the nuclear stations with one of the generating organisations seems illogical and unwise.
There are a vast number of issues still to be solved on the nuclear front. There are such questions as the disposal of waste, the various processes for generating nuclear power, the dire consequences should there be emissions from these stations, and so on. They raise questions of a totally different order from conventional stations. I believe very strongly therefore that the Government should think again and should separate off the nuclear stations from the conventional. They should set up a separate company for that purpose as is the case in Scotland.
16
I think it highly desirable that as an interim step the Government should retain 51 per cent. in this area of our activities that still faces so many problems.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like very much to support as warmly as I can the amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. Competition is the main thrust of the Government in this Bill. I have always believed that the aims of the electricity supply industry should be—and I give them no particular order—security, safety and cheapness. In the disturbance which the Government's proposals are bound to inflict upon the industry, I fear that, despite the Government's declared intentions to the contrary, competition may be such a primary force so far as concerns the legislation that safety and security will tend to be pushed out of the prime position which they should occupy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has reminded us, there are a vast number of issues still to be dealt with. I believe that there are far too many unknowns, that there have been far too many disappointments in the past, and that we have as yet too little experience to thrust this comparatively new section of a highly complex sophisticated industry into the general shake-up that is now contemplated.
I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions to which I should greatly value a reply. At this stage are the Government able to say with any certainty whether they would regard the ownership of the nuclear stations as a source of financial embarrassment or as a burden? The Select Committee of another place raised the question of the structure proposed for the industry and had an interesting comment which I should like to read to Members of the Committee concerning the solution proposed for nuclear:
"As regards the structural solutions for generation proposed by the Government in both England and Wales and in Scotland, the Committee is strongly of the view that the nuclear pre-occupations of the Government have played a dominant part in its thinking, so much so that the nuclear tail seems to be wagging the ESI dog".
I fully share that fear and anxiety. I do not know what information, if any, we have as yet available as to what will be the sale price of the nuclear stations. That will be an all-important factor in the balance between the two sides of the industry.
I was curious to find that in paragraph 50 of the Government's reply to the Select Committee there are the words:
"National Power will be required to account separately for its nuclear generating costs".
If the Government recognise, as they clearly did in coming to the view that it would be impossible to merge the two, why did they not find it possible to take a further step and accept the need for separation, at least for the time being?
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in a more general context than that of the nuclear stations, I wonder why the Government are adopting such a different line in Scotland from that in England and Wales. I believe that the line adopted for Scotland is right. I believe that the line adopted for England and Wales is wrong and full of dangers and risks. I always fear on these occasions that so much water

17
has flowed over the dam that the Government's position has become set in concrete. Yet I believe that they would be well advised to consider again most seriously all the risks and uncertainties that are involved in the reorganisation of an immense and vitally important industry, and to see that those risks should be kept to a minimum by not involving the ordinary conventional generation sector with the added uncertainties and risks that are attendant upon nuclear.
Baroness Hooper: It may be helpful to the Committee if I intervene at this stage. I shall be very happy to speak again at the end of the debate if it is so wished. Perhaps I should establish, as I understand it, that the only amendment moved is Amendment No. 224H and that we are speaking to the grouping which includes Amendments Nos. 226ZA and 228AA.
Strong feelings have been aired and powerful arguments advanced by the movers of this amendment. All speak from concern and experience, but perhaps none more so than the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I am most grateful to him for giving me notice of the line that he intended to take today. He speaks from a base of much experience in the nuclear industry and a strong concern to ensure its future.
It was stated clearly in our manifesto that we are committed to maintaining a nuclear programme. We believe in the need for diversity of supply to ensure security of supply and here we echo your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. In its sub-committee's report on research and development in nuclear power, it said:
"the present abundance of energy is unlikely to last. There is no adequate alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. The United Kingdom must therefore retain the capability to develop and expand its nuclear power industry, in the most cost-effective way, taking full account of public concern over the impact of the nuclear programme on health and the environment, where possible in collaboration with agencies in other countries".
These are sentiments which the Government whole-heartedly share. Not only do we believe that nuclear power has a future in the private sector but that it has a better future than if it were to remain in the public sector. Germany and Belgium have safe and successful private sector nuclear industries. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, has a less happy record in spite of having a public sector industry.
The White Paper Privatising Electricity made it clear that one of the major benefits of privatisation is to free the electricity industry from government intervention in its day-to-day management. It is a matter of record that succesive governments have interfered, for good reasons or bad, in the running of the electricity industry. Nowhere is this more apparent than on nuclear policy. The high cost of reprocessing Magnox fuel stems from the early choice by government of a first generation of nuclear reactors which operated on natural uranium. The problems that the CEGB has faced in the construction and running of its AGRs stem from government-influenced decisions in spite of opposition from the industry on the choice of an unproven novel reactor type. I would say to those who have argued in favour of AGRs that we recognise that Heysham and Torness are now
18
proving that AGRs can work although they are still a more expensive option, but that evidence was not available when the decision was taken to pursue the PWR route of well proven technology which was opened to us, I might add, by a decision of a previous Labour Administration.
It is a fact of life that financing the needs of nationalised industries counts as public expenditure. This means that the investment needs of the electricity industry have in the past had to compete with other government priorities. This is no more sensible for the nuclear power industry than for any other of the industries we have privatised or are in the process of privatising.
We propose that such intervention in the future should be strictly limited. But we have safeguarded a future for nuclear power by our proposal for a non-fossil fuel obligation. This will place a duty on the public electricity supply companies to contract for nuclear or other non-fossil capacity.
As well as the removal of government intervention, privatisation of nuclear power will mean that National Power will be exposed to the rigours of the commercial financial market in raising money to fund the construction of new stations. This will expose National Power to yet another need to demonstrate that it can carry out such projects competently and efficiently. That must be beneficial.
Further, although we are now able to realise the full cost of nuclear power, it may not always be more expensive than fossil-generated power. We are now becoming aware of the full environmental effect of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power can become the generation source of choice. If we were to retain nuclear power in the public sector—subject to expenditure controls which are more to do with the Government's economic policies than the specific needs of the industry—it would be unlikely to be as dynamic and responsive as a private sector company has to be.
These are all good reasons for privatising nuclear power with the rest of the electricity industry. But it has been argued today that because of some problems and uncertainties we should retain the nuclear element in the public sector. I assure the Committee that the Government do not underestimate the complexity of privatising the nuclear industry. Indeed, there are three clauses and a schedule in the Bill to deal with it, and we have given a great deal of consideration to the issue. We have had wide consultations with all parts of the industry—with BNFL with regard to the vital issues of reprocessing and with our privatisation advisers and with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on the important question of safety. We are confident that the framework we are setting up in this Bill will ensure a long and successful future for nuclear power in the private sector for the following very good reasons.
First, in splitting the CEGB into the two successor generating companies, we decided to allot all the existing nuclear power stations to National Power, which will then own 70 per cent. of the CEGB's generating capacity, as has been said. National Power will be a massive company, one of the 10 largest in the country, with assets of nearly £20 billion on a current cost basis and turnover of around

19
£5 billion. National Power will retain the CEGB's nuclear expertise and the experience of staff currently designing, building and operating the CEGB's nuclear power stations—an important point made by the noble Earl. This decision will ensure continuity and maintain the high standards that have been achieved in the running of the existing nuclear programme, standards which have been recognised in today's discussions. National Power will own the PWR currently under construction at Sizewell and, subject to receiving consent and planning approval, intends to build a further PWR at Hinkley Point. Planning applications have been received for two further PWR stations, Wylfa B and Sizewell C. In order to meet the non-fossil fuel obligation, given the fact that Magnox stations are coming to the end of their planned lives, the public electricity supply companies will need to place contracts with National Power for these new stations as well as for existing ones and there will be long-term contracts to that effect.
Last Thursday we discussed the non-fossil fuel obligation on the public electricity supply companies which will give National Power the confidence it needs to build and operate nuclear stations, some of which are likely to provide power for up to 50 years from now. There are many companies which would like to have a similar security.
I also explained on Thursday our proposals for the fossil-fuel levy. This will ensure that the public electricity supply companies themselves can feel happy in contracting for nuclear power over a long period, since any additional cost that falls to them compared with the price of alternative generating capacity can be shared among all electricity customers, who, after all, all benefit from the security of supply.
The proposals I have outlined so far deal with the issue of the present cost of nuclear power. However, the noble Earl and others have referred to future unknowns and have expressed concerns about the uncertainties in costs of nuclear power. The Government have considered these issues very carefully.
It is one of the features of the nuclear industry that many of its costs occur long after the related electricity has been generated. Nuclear fuel needs to be reprocessed. The resulting wastes need to be treated and eventually disposed of. Nuclear plant has to be decommissioned after it reaches the end of its life. Some of these costs are very long term. For example, disposal of vitrified high level waste will not take place until after it has been stored for up to 50 years. The final decommissioning of nuclear power stations may well not take place until 100 years after the station has closed. All of these areas are quite rightly subject to stringent safety and environmental regulatory systems which may well become more stringent over the years given the long periods involved. Furthermore, some costs cannot yet be determined with any precision. As the noble Earl said, some decisions about the final disposal of nuclear waste have still to be taken. To date provision has been made based on estimates of
20
these costs which are charged to customers in their electricity bills. But these bills clearly cannot take into account unforeseen future cost increases.
While the nuclear industry was in the public sector, the Government ultimately stood behind any unforeseen cost increase. That is the burden of the amendments. We believe that it would be right, therefore, in certain circumstances after privatisation for the Government to assist the industry by contributing towards such cost increases. Again we have to look at the Bill as a whole. We shall be debating Clause 93 and Schedule 12 on another day, but these provisions will permit the Government to contribute to costs associated with reprocessing, waste treatment and disposal, and the decommissioning of nuclear plant. We must look very carefully at this area to see whether we can give greater certainty to the investor and the public that the Government will meet their side of the deal. Therefore, at Report stage we intend to table an amendment to Schedule 12 to enable the Secretary of State to enter into binding commitments in this respect.
By sharing risk in that way in areas which are not subject to the control of the nuclear operators we believe that it is possible to give appropriate assurance to potential investors that National Power's profits will not be wiped out by factors outside its control while permitting the company to enter into contracts which create incentives to good management and cost control in the areas which are controllable.
I trust that that assurance will be welcome for the future of the nuclear industry. I believe that it responds to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton as to whether the reason for nuclear being transferred to the private sector was that it would cause financial embarrassment or be a burden to the Government—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to intervene but I am anxious that my noble friend should understand what I attempted to say. I was asking whether the Government regard the future ownership of the nuclear industry by the private sector as a source of advantage or as a burden.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that what I have already said will show clearly that we see it as an advantage.
There has been much mention of BNFL. This risk-sharing approach means that BNFL can offer effectively fixed prices. This provides incentives to good performance, and so costs in this area will be kept under control in the future. Negotiations are now going on to this end.
By targeting the particular areas of nuclear risk, it will be possible for National Power to have a secure financial future with the prospect of proper commercial pressures and incentives to encourage cost control and profitability.
I have spoken at some length on this and other amendments in the group, but it is an important subject and strikes at the heart of the Government's policy for the future of the nuclear generating business in this country. I hope that I have been able

21
to convince anyone in doubt that what we envisage as a result of this Bill is an efficient nuclear power industry with a long-term future in the private sector but adequately and closely regulated by government in relation in particular to safety and the environment. We are willing to provide government backup and support for R&D as previously stated and for unforeseen back-end liabilities. We believe that the nuclear industry will continue to provide, as it has in the past, a major contribution to energy supply and the security of that supply in this country.
For those reasons I hope that Members of the Committee will reject the amendment. If in the course of further debate other questions arise I shall endeavour to answer them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Baroness has been kind in giving the Committee the benefit of the Government's views. Of course, they are exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, expressed—set in concrete. She has disregarded the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Peyton. That is apart from saying that the Government will introduce an amendment to Schedule 12 which will protect the profits of National Power. Protecting the profits of National Power was not the objective of my amendment, nor, I believe, that of the noble Earl's.
It is absolutely clear that we have met a complete stone wall. The noble Baroness has not even spoken to my amendment which requires the Secretary of State to have the power to determine what shall be in any particular scheme. I believe that there is no point in the Committee continuing with the debate and I seek to test its opinion on my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Erroll of Hale: Before the noble Lord tests the opinion of the Committee perhaps he will allow other Members the opportunity to give their views.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Erroll of Hale: I know that several Members on this side of the Committee support the Government as do I. I should like to thank the Minister for giving those assurances this afternoon. They go a long way towards removing many of the doubts of a financial nature which were previously expressed. As regards the other so-called "unknowns" of a technical nature—
Lord Howie of Troon: Will the Leader of the House say something on this point?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Erroll of Hale: I shall go on. Apparently the noble Lord does not wish to intervene at this stage and so I shall continue. My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to a "vast number of unknowns". That is going a little far. There are a certain number of unknowns but I believe that they are containable. I believe that previous speakers tended to over-emphasise the difference between nuclear and conventional power stations.
22
Twenty-five years ago, when my noble friend Lord Peyton and I were ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Power, the industry was in its infancy. Today it is well established and well understood. The differences between nuclear and conventional generation are over-emphasised. The only difference—and admittedly it is a big difference—is the source of heat to provide steam for driving the turbine generators. In conventional stations the heat source is coal or oil-fired boilers. In nuclear stations it is the "nuclear island", as it is called. The rest of the nuclear station consists of conventional mechanical and electrical engineering. Indeed, it is the major part—turbines, generators, transformers, switching and control systems.
Separation of the two forms would result in two separate cultures: the still nationalised nuclear sector and the much larger private sector. I believe that that would be particularly harmful. It would create a number of disadvantages for the supply industry as a whole were it to be supplied by two widely differing cultures. For example, the staff in nuclear stations would continue much as at present but would be deprived of the more invigorating climate of a private culture. Engineers could not easily be promoted from one area to the other. A few nuclear island specialists might remain in a class of their own in any event. The pay and pension conditions would become increasingly different and the nuclear stations would have difficulty in attracting qualified staff for conventional management and technical posts.
As regards the exchange of technology, the nuclear sector would not have informal access to technological developments and research carried out by the private sector and would fall behind. In the construction of new nuclear and conventional stations suppliers would be faced with two different sets of specifications, progressing systems, and payment or non-payment terms. With a single private purchaser, such as is envisaged, those could be streamlined and standardised for the great benefit of the components industry.
The construction of the nuclear island, as distinct from its operation, is also not a special case. The specification, progress reporting to reduce delays, and inspection are likely to be more rigorous and practical in private hands. An important part of construction is cost overruns. They happen in conventional stations but are worse in nuclear. A private customer would be much more vigilant than a nationalised customer. The latter would have little incentive to improve its methods and would be denied the benefits of evolving experience being gained in the private conventional field.
Naturally, the subject of safety is much mentioned. It is fallacy to suppose that a nuclear island would be in safer hands if constructed and operated by a nationalised body. For example, the safety record of the privatised British Airways is the answer to all that. In any case, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is strong and powerful. It would not permit the cutting of corners were that to be attempted. At the same time, the NII would gain from contact with the more vigorous and more

23
business-like approach of the private customer and the private operator.
The philosophy behind this Bill is that privatisation will improve the efficiency of the whole electricity supply industry. The nuclear sector should not be denied that great opportunity to improve itself. Given that the financial burden is to be faced up to by the Government in the amendments to be proposed, for which I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed, I hope that we shall be able to reject this amendment.
Lord Renton: I was at the Ministry of Power when the decision was taken to have a nuclear power station industry at all. That was 33 years ago. We were faced with all kinds of uncertainties. We did not know how long the fuel elements, which were costly, would last. We did not know how long the reactors would last, and therefore we could not assess the length of life of the reactors upon which the cost depended. We did not know, although some thought had been given to it, how much it would cost and what uncertainties there would be in disposing of the nuclear waste, of which we have quite rightly heard a good deal today. If we had been deterred by those various uncertainties, we would not have a nuclear power industry today at all.
I say to those Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and who have spoken from their experience that we should legislate to give opportunities and not merely to follow the respected, established practices. If we are never going to allow experiment to take place—and my noble friend Lord Peyton seemed to be against experiment because he said that we have had too little experience and too few experiments to go on with this extension of nuclear power—we shall not get anywhere. I believe that the Government are absolutely right to be embarking on the privatisation of the industry in the way in which they are by still giving the state sector a nuclear power opportunity but also making it possible for experiment by private industry.
Lord Gray of Contin: I believe that we all appreciate the contribution made during the afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I am among those who used to read his speeches on energy matters long before I came to this Chamber. When he is talking on his own subject, on the technicalities of physics and nuclear power, he has no equal.
However, I suggest that perhaps he does not have a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to deciding how the nuclear industry should be administered in the future. I am afraid that I take issue with him in a number of ways. We all know that the Bill which this Committee is considering at present is basically about privatisation. It is about privatisation of the electricity industry, and that includes all types of power generation. I do not believe that anybody has ever been in any doubt about that.
With the greatest respect, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Earl that many of the arguments which he put forward this afternoon were excellent arguments for doing just what the Government are
24
seeking to do in privatising the electricity industry; that is, opening up new approaches and getting rid of government interference, which most privatisation Bills have been about. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I also served in the Department of Energy for a period of time and I suppose that I was one of those Ministers who could be accused of poking his nose into such matters. I take the view that the more that Ministers are kept out of decisions affecting power generation, the better.
All we have to do is to look briefly at the history since the war of successive governments thinking that they knew better than the experts as to how power should be generated. There is a sad history of nuclear power in this country. There was a ping-pong of decision-making which took place from the advanced gas-cooled reactor through the steam generated heavy water reactor, which was a popular favourite for a few years, to the pressurised water reactor, and on the way ditching—I am very sad about this—the fast breeder reactor which many of us who studied the subject felt offered the greatest potential of all for power generation in this country.
What did the good people of Dounreay gain from the fact that the Government had the last say in the production of a fast breeder reactor? It is an area of the country which welcomed with open arms the prototype fast reactor which a previous Conservative Government had decided to locate there. Those people ignored all the warnings and the vitriol which was spread by some who have now achieved a degree of acceptability—I refer to the Friends of the Earth, the Greens and lots of others. If their predictions had come true we should all be cinders by now. However, the people of Caithness did not take that view. They said: "Yes, we are prepared to give it a try". Give it a try they did and a very successful try it was.
What benefit has it been to them for the public sector to have been the ultimate judge in deciding whether the fast breeder reactor should go ahead? Let us look further at the tragedies which have taken place; for example, the Hartlepool power station took some 19 years to build and Dungeness B even beat that record and took 20 years. No private industry could possibly survive such cost or time overrun. That is one reason why it is essential that in future it is the private sector which controls and administers nuclear power, just as it now does other forms of power generation.
Lord Ezra: May I ask the noble Lord, with his great knowledge of Scottish affairs, whether he supports the proposition in the Bill that there should be a separate nuclear power company for Scotland, leaving aside the question of ownership? If he agrees with that, does he believe that a similar arrangement should be made in England and Wales?
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, with whom I have had many dealings over the years, is as aware as I am that the whole structure in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales. Scotland has always had a vertical structure as regards the south and north electricity boards. That was a logical progression. I congratulate the Government on their

25
wisdom in maintaining and retaining the differences which exist between Scotland and England not only as regards power generation but also on other aspects of the Bill.
The privatisation which we are considering today will mean that regulation will be further separated from operation. Again that must be a satisfactory move forward. Indeed, the Labour Party, which is associated with this group of amendments, is quite inconsistent in arguing that powers should be separated in the oil and gas industries but must be combined in the nuclear industry. It seems to me that that is an argument of convenience rather than merit. If we look at the private sector and its attitude to the construction of power stations in the future, it seems to be suggested in some quarters that that will be the end of large power station construction. It will not necessarily be the end of large power station construction but it will open the way for the construction of more small power stations than we have seen until now. Rolls-Royce is only one of the many companies which has expressed an interest in this matter.
Diversity is very important because the Bill seeks to ensure that there will be diversity of power; that we will never again become dependent solely upon one type of power. Our experience with the coal industry, which has been threatened three times in the past 20 years, is as good an argument as any for diversification. For the major contribution to diversification we must look to the nuclear industry. Nearly 20 per cent. of power generation comes from nuclear power. In Scotland in excess of two-thirds of power generation is from nuclear power. Therefore we are talking about a form of generation which is vitally important for the future of the industry.
I can see no good reason why the whole question of nuclear power being a part of the private sector rather than the public sector should create apprehension. What is important is that safety in the industry is properly regulated. I do not think that anyone in this Committee is suggesting that our form of regulation of the nuclear industry until now has not been highly successful. We speak of Chernobyl, but the plain fact of the matter is that the type of reactor used there would never have been accepted in this country at the outset. It would never have been built in this country. Our nuclear industry is a magnificent industry with a splendid record. It will go from strength to strength, but preferably in the private sector.
4 P.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose these amendments. I consider them to be wrecking amendments. If one supports privatisation of electricity, as I do, then there is no way that one could accept these amendments. It is unfortunate however, that there is such a mixture of Members of the Committee supporting the amendment. I believe that their motives are entirely different.
I have the greatest regard for the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I shall never forget the day when we were going to see the station at Dounreay. We were
26
fog-bound. We had the most marvellous teach-in at Gatwick Airport on nuclear energy from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. That made the matter so very much more clear to us that when we arrived at Dounreay we were able to follow what was being explained. I know that the motives of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in moving this amendment are that he has a high regard for nuclear energy and for its future. I do not feel the same in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I think his motives are purely that he thinks that these amendments would be effective in wrecking the Bill. I believe that they would wreck the Bill and for that reason I strongly oppose them.
However, I should like to take issue with one comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. He raised the problem of what would happen in 40 years' time. Forty years could be the length of a working man's life. A man who designs something might not be around 40 years later if we want to seek his knowledge. That has applied throughout history. People can never be relied upon to be available for one moment, much less for 40 years. Whatever major project is being undertaken in this country or anywhere else in the world it must be done to plans and provisions must be made. We are not a nation which is unable to communicate to the next generation. The most brilliant designer could be killed in an accident. I am unable to accept the noble Earl's argument that there is any problem on lack of continuity with regard to a specific person. I do not understand why the nuclear industry would be safer in government hands than in any other hands. There must be the same interest in establishing continuity of safety.
It is worth pointing out that Clause 93 will allow the government of the day to make any necessary contributions associated with changes in re-processing waste or disposal or de-commissioning a nuclear plant. De-commissioning is the one element that applies specifically to nuclear power as opposed to other forms of power. It is the long-term effects of de-commissioning and the time that it takes, of which we are all aware in this Committee and wish to consider very seriously.
I oppose this amendment and ask the Committee not to support it.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We have not had a spokesman from the Labour Back Benches—unless the noble Earl wishes to intervene.
The Earl of Halsbury: I should like to emphasise to the noble Baroness that there is no difficulty in communicating with the next generation. Our problem is to recruit good members in exciting circumstances.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have listened to the arguments with great interest. The whole matter transcends the issue of party politics. The very nature of the names appended to the amendments indicates that that is so. We must get one point straight.

27
When the noble Baroness intervened earlier in the debate she sought to show that public ownership was bad and unsafe and that private ownership was not. She instanced Germany and Belgium as examples of private industry which had been highly successful and have run safe nuclear industries. She compared that position with the industry in the Soviet Union which is under public ownership. The noble Baroness forgot to mention the fact that the French run a nuclear industry under public control. The Government, no doubt justifiably, often praise that industry because it delivers nuclear power at a very reasonable cost, for whatever reason. It clouds the issue to suggest that an industry under public ownership is bad and that an industry under private ownership is good. There is more to it than that.
One of the major problems in relation to nuclear power is public perception. People are now clearly concerned about the environment and safety in the environment. We saw this concern displayed in the elections on Thursday when some 15 per cent. of the electorate showed that they were concerned about environmental issues. That is a point that the Government ought to consider. It is a matter which the public will want to be considered long and seriously. It is important not only to the industry as a whole but to the future of the nuclear industry that the public should conceive it to be good, clean and under proper public control. I rest my argument, but that is why I believe that the Government should not reject these amendments out of hand. They should accept that there is a new public perception that they have not taken note of and that they should go away and consider this in the light of what has been said on all sides of the Committee. I hope that the Government will consider this matter very seriously. If they do so, in spite of some speeches we have heard from the opposite side of the Committee, everyone throughout the country would be very relieved.
Viscount Torrington: I had the great privilege of serving with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on Sub-Committee F, or B as it now is, for a number of years. I developed a great regard for his knowledge, wit and wisdom. Perhaps I may coin a phrase in saying that he is slightly barking up the wrong pylon today. Essentially his proposal is to create three companies. Instead of big G and little G we shall have nuclear G and two little fossil Gs. A short while ago he spoke about the fact that nuclear power within big G as presently planned will be cross-subsidised by coal. Under his proposal I find this slightly worrying, because a rule of business is always diversification. I would not wish to be running a one-technology company—one that made its product by only one method when there were others available.
I believe that today the future of coal-fired generation is worrying. Not only have we seen the vulnerability to strikes and mining problems, but costs will rise dramatically in the near future because of desulphurisation being applied. Even when the emissions from coal-fired stations are desulphurised, a number of other nasty things come out. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, is rather fond of saying that
28
there is more radioactivity emitted from a coal-fired power station in one year than should ever come out of a nuclear power station.
Essentially what comes out of a coal-fired power station is carbon dioxide. As every schoolboy knows, over millions of years coal seams are the remains of fossil forests where carbon dioxide was fixed as fixed carbon. By burning coal today we are releasing it back into the atmosphere. We decry the burning of forests in the third world, but the CEGB effectively burns millions of acres of forests every year. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said the other day, the alternatives of wind and tide power have immense environmental problems. We are left with only the two alternatives, of nuclear and of coal power. To separate these, with a state-owned nuclear industry, would mean that in not too many years' time we may end up effectively with state ownership of the entire industry, because coal-fired generation has had to stop in Europe.
Before I sit down let me say that I welcome my noble friend's intervention in this matter earlier on to say that the Government will give a measure of insurance to the costs of waste disposal, and particularly of decommissioning. That is a very welcome development. It is not something that is entirely peculiar to the nuclear industry. The oil industry is also facing problems of abandoning oil and gas facilities. Perhaps the Government would also consider more favourable tax treatment as regards sinking funds for abandonment costs.
I believe that if the nuclear industry is fully privatised in big G today, it will be more responsive and profitable, freed from state interference and, just occasionally, the well-intentioned but not particularly commercial views of eminent scientific interest. I beg that we should reject this amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: It is time to protest at one aspect of this debate. Just now my noble friend Lady Gardner traduced the motives of at least one noble Lord, if not two, in supporting this amendment. She did the same thing the other day. As I understand parliamentary custom, one may suggest that a noble Lord opposite or on your own side, or a right honourable gentleman, is crazy and stupid, misinformed and misled but one never traduces his motives. I hope that the Committee will accept that what my noble friend said was not intended to be quite as offensive as I believe it seemed.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I must respond to that point. My comments as regards motives were purely in a political context. If they are found to be unpleasant, surely that is the whole purpose of this Committee stage. We are here as a political Committee. If the reference is to the other day when I declared an interest in the Bill and hoped that someone else had, that is a different matter. If we have a financial or commercial interest, it is our responsibility to declare it to the Committee. It would be very wrong if the Committee was not aware of it. I consider the issue raised today to be highly political. As I said, I consider this to be a wrecking amendment. I do not believe that the noble Earl,

29
Lord Halsbury, is opposed to the principle of privatisation of electricity in general, but I am not convinced that others are greatly for it. Therefore my comments today are purely political and not personal. I believe that the noble Earl is out of order in what he said on this point.
The Earl of Lauderdale: In view of what my noble friend has said, I withdraw my remarks. I apologise without qualification, but that is how I understood what she was saying.
Are we not debating these amendments as a group? Therefore it is important to get back to the main issues before the Committee. The Government's promise of an amendment to the schedule to be moved on Report is an interesting piece of news. It is in very general terms and we cannot tell now whether it goes to the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter today is whether or not, as a council of state representing wise men, or old men, and women of this country, we want to put nuclear power wholly into the private sector. It may be that we do. But I have great reservations about it and it is only right that they should be stated. As I understand this group of amendments, they have two objects. The first is to make sure that England and Wales enjoy the same position as that to be enjoyed by my native Scotland in having a single nuclear company directly focused on nuclear power alone. It is interesting that in that regard the Select Committee on Energy in the other place drew attention to the matter and said it could not understand the Government's motives for providing a different recipe for England and Wales.
The second object is this. Are we quite sure that the nuclear element ultimately will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Here the genie is out of the bottle. We do not know where nuclear power is going to lead us. There have been disasters and there could be others. Politics apart, is it really prudent to put nuclear power wholly at the disposal of private enterprise? First, it means that it is under the control of a company that will put profits first. I am for profits in general, but I am not for profits in the Army or in the public services, and I regard this industry as a public service. Private enterprise must put profits first. In turn that is bound to lead—indeed we have already been told that it will lead—to cutbacks in research and development. That is a matter that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is very anxious about. Even now we have not had a proper answer from the Government.
The pursuit of profit must lead at some point to cost shaving and staff economies. We are told, and my noble friend has said this afternoon, that the part of the CEGB which it is at present intended should take charge of nuclear power will inherit the CEGB's staff. The successor company has already said that it will cut staff. It may well be that it will cut back on everyone except the clever people. It may be that the future nuclear element in the successor company will be staffed by people with double firsts. However, the trouble in the nuclear industry, and indeed in the chemical industry where terrible disasters have happened, has been that brainy lunatics have been
30
fiddling about with mechanisms which they did not design and which they did not fully understand. We need to be certain that whoever looks after nuclear power will ensure that there is continuing design knowledge alongside the generation of profits. It is the primacy of profits which is alarming in this whole business.
The proposal is simply that the Government should hold on to 51 per cent. Under this group of amendments 49 per cent. will still be available to the public. This system operates with BP. It is a sensible arrangement, it has been well tried and could be repeated here. My noble friend suggested that this is a wrecking amendment. It depends on what one means by "a wrecking amendment". An amendment that gets the thing right at the cost of delay is surely more important than getting the thing wrong in a hurry. One of the dangers of our legislative process is that we do things in a hurry. We have a time limit. We believe that we must get so many things out of the way before the next election. That does not necessarily result in good legislation. I ask whether, for our children and grandchildren, we are prepared, hand on heart, to turn nuclear power over to private enterprise without parliamentary control and scrutiny. I am not so prepared; therefore I support this group of amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, about one point. We on the Cross-Benches have no political motives. If I were suspected for one moment of having a political motive it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would have asked me to come and discuss his views.
Baroness Hooper: I am sure that we all recognise the justice of those remarks. I feel that I should explain again my reason for intervening earlier. I did so to enable those who have anxieties to realise that the Government are willing to do something about these unascertainable costs which are so difficult to anticipate at this stage. It is a real concern to some people. I am glad that this proposal for action was supported by so many of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Erroll, Lord Renton and Lord Gray of Contin, all of whom speak from backgrounds of considerable experience in the electricity supply industry.
I said at the outset that powerful arguments had been advanced in favour of the amendments. I believe now that my noble friends have raised powerful arguments against them. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that in making my argument I did not say that all was bad in the public sector. I was endeavouring to show, in the face of the anxieties and concerns, that there are benefits to be gained by transferring nuclear to the private sector together with the rest of the generating industry. We believe that the framework we have created will provide a strong basis for an efficient nuclear power industry with a long-term future. That industry will be adequately and closely regulated by government, particularly in the safety and environmental fields. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin who pointed out that

31
the separation of regulation from ownership is a decided plus factor. At this point perhaps I should say that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has been approaching scaremongering in suggesting that safety standards, research and development and the like would suffer.
As I was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for not speaking specifically to the amendments themselves I shall take the opportunity to say that Amendment No. 224H seems to achieve little other than to give the Secretary of State the power to direct that the transfer scheme should be in terms which provide for a separate nuclear company. This is unnecessary. The transfer scheme will require the approval of the Secretary of State. It will therefore have to be framed in terms which are acceptable to him and are consistent with the legislation.
Amendments Nos. 226ZA and 228AA would prevent the Secretary of State disposing of more than 49 per cent. of ordinary voting shares in either that company or the Scottish nuclear company. They do not force the Secretary of State to exercise the voting rights which he will retain; so he could decide not to if he so wished. For the various reasons I have given I trust that the Committee will reject the amendments when the appropriate time arrives.
Lord Beaverbrook: I agree that this is a wrecking amendment. Not only will the amendments wreck the Bill; the result of them will be to wreck the nuclear industry. I agree with my noble friend Lord Torrington that that will enable us to carry on wrecking the ozone layer and the atmosphere. Until a miracle such as cold fusion comes to exist we have to go on using sources of power that are not ideal. However, we must use those which we believe to be the cleanest available.
The continuing burning of fossil fuel will not be acceptable into the next century. I feel that the future of the nuclear generation industry will be much more secure and that the industry will be run better in the private sector. Of course the Government must continue to have a real role in regulating safety in the industry. Over the years the Government have had a good record in the regulation of safety, whether in the air or on the sea; and even on the railways. One day there will be greater separation there between ownership and regulation. Health and safety have on the whole been a good story in this country.
Lord Renton: I agree with my noble friend but it is worth mentioning that far more lives have been lost through accidents in coal mines, in spite of all the efforts made to achieve safety, than have been lost through nuclear accidents.
Lord Beaverbrook: I agree with my noble friend, but I do not believe that the presence of the Secretary of State as the sole shareholder in any of these industries will make a huge diference to safety. We cannot get away from that.
I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Torrington said. I hope that my noble friend the
32
Minister will stand absolutely firm in her line on these amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the noble Baroness wish to give her third winding-up speech, or shall I give my second? I wound up earlier when the noble Baroness treated us most courteously to an extensive declaration of government policy. Since that time there have been many interventions from noble Lords opposite. I do not question their motives; they may or may not be political. However, part of them were certainly to the point and part, if I may say so without mentioning names, were wide of the issue which we are discussing here. We are discussing the question of whether the nuclear industry should in some form or other remain under public control and what sort of mechanism is needed to achieve that aim.
The noble Baroness set out the Government's arguments perfectly sensibly in her first winding-up speech: the Government's position is absolutely rooted to the spot, and in my view there is no point in further debate on the matter. Therefore, I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 224H) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hayter, L.

Barnett, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blyth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Carter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Denington, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNair, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milverton, L.

Ezra, L.

Monson, L.

Falkender, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Galpern, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grimond, L.

33

Porritt, L.

Somers, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stallard, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rea, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rochester, L.

Thurso, V.

Russell, E.

Tordoff, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Seebohm, L.

Walston, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

White, B.

Serota, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shannon, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Winstanley, L.

Simon, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Allerton, L.

Hood, V.

Annaly, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Atholl, D.

Joseph, L.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Birdwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cayzer, L.

Morris, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Deedes, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Derwent, L.

Renwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Richardson, L.

Dundee, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Eccles, V.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Elibank, L.

St. Germans, E.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Foley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Swansea, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Torrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Trafford, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvington, L.

Westbury, L.

Havers, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hemphill, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Wolfson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.

Students: Top-up Loans
4.38 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the arrangements for administering top-up loans for students.
"The House will recall that I announced on 9th November the Government's proposals for introducing non-means-tested top-up loans. I said that from 1990, in addition to their grant, all home students in full-time higher education, except postgraduates, will be eligible for a top-up loan averaging over £400 in a full year. I explained that this will be offered at a real interest rate of zero and that repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low.
"In that Statement I made clear the Government's view that the top-up loan scheme would be best administered by the financial institutions. The scheme will of course be subject to the necessary legislation and, as I told the House, the Government will bring forward a short Bill to provide legislative authority for the scheme. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, following discussion with representatives of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers, a scheme has been designed which is agreed to be a cost-effective and feasible means of introducing top-up loans in September 1990 as planned.
"Under this scheme there will be a private sector loan administrator, in the form of a company established and wholly owned by participating financial institutions, under contract to the Government. Participation in this company will be open to a wide range of financial institutions. It is clear from my discussions with members of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers that—subject to the satisfactory outcome of the contractual negotiations—a sufficient number of financial institutions will wish to participate from the outset to ensure that the company will be viable.
"Under these arrangements, students who wish to benefit from top-up loans will obtain a certificate of entitlement from their university, polytechnic or college. These certificates can be presented to the branches of the banks and other financial institutions which own that company, or to the company itself, who will make the resources available to the student and maintain a record of the transaction. The Government will fund the

35
company for the administrative costs of the scheme, and, of course, for the loans themselves.
"The Government have carefully considered the repayment system, in the light of the responses to the top-up loans White Paper. We have concluded that repayment should be on the basis of equal amounts, adjusted annually for inflation, being repaid over a standard period. The obligation to repay will be deferred when a graduate's income falls below given levels in relation to average national income. Deferment will be arranged with the company on the basis of self-certification of income and subject to audit. In order to minimise any default on repayments, there will be a financial incentive under which the company will earn a proportion of its fee through securing a high repayment rate.
"The Government will meet the costs of detailed preparatory work by the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers and by the company in the period from now onwards. Parliamentary approval will be sought in an additional supplementary estimate to be presented shortly. We shall start immediate negotiations with the interested financial institutions in order to conclude a contract to cover the operation of the scheme and this will of course be conditional on the Royal Assent to the Act. The range of costs indicated in the preparatory work is from £8.3 million to £11.5 million for start-up costs and £10.4 million to £14 million for annual operating costs. I am glad to say that these are many times smaller than the amounts I have been reading about in the press over the last few months.
"Mr Speaker, it is right that this scheme should be administered in the private sector. Our financial institutions possess skills in information and banking systems which are not readily available in the public sector. I am satisfied that these arrangements offer an efficient scheme and good value for money. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement which I am sure all noble Lords found most interesting. Before asking him a number of questions perhaps I may say that I am not proposing at this moment to debate the loan scheme per se. Noble Lords are aware of my criticisms of the scheme and I am aware of the Government's basis for their support of it. We shall have other opportunities on which to debate the scheme; I hope that this afternoon we can concentrate simply on clarifying the Statement itself and the administration of the scheme. With that end in view, I have a number of questions.
I start with the statement that the top-up loan will average £400 in a full year. Will the noble Viscount confirm the statement in the White Paper that it was the Government's intention that the loan facility would be increased every year until it was equal to the value of the grant, and the parental contribution taken together? In other words, the £400 a year is
36
simply the opening sum which will rise through time. Is that still the case?
I notice that the intention is to introduce the top-up loan scheme in September 1990. I take it therefore that your Lordships can certainly expect a statement in the Queen's Speech that the Bill will be going forward. However, just to make absolutely certain, can the noble Viscount assure us that the Government have no intention of trying to introduce a short Bill in this Session of Parliament on the assumption that we have some spare space? I have to tell him that I believe we do not.
The Statement refers to a private sector loan administrator. Can the Government tell us any more at all about what sort of person they have in mind as this loan administrator? Am I right in assuming that the person will be completely independent? Has any thought been given to the loan administrator being assisted by an advisory committee? Will there be a role for any kind of ombusdman character who could intervene in connection with the administration of the loan?
The Statement is rather vague about the participation of what is referred to as:
"a wide range of financial institutions".
The noble Viscount referred to "a sufficient number". Is he able to tell us more precisely how many is "a sufficient number"? Is he able to tell us at this point the names of any of the institutions which have agreed to take part? Alternatively, if he is not, I take it that he will be in a position some time to tell us the names of some of the institutions.
Regarding the scheme, according to the Statement, the Government will fund the administrative costs and the loans themselves. Will the noble Viscount confirm that both those sums will appear in the accounts as public expenditure? On the administration of the loan, the Statement referred to a standard period. Have we any idea yet how long the standard period is, or any idea of its range or anything of that sort?
Reference is made to default, and there will be an incentive to the new company to earn some of its fee through securing a high repayment rate. Have the Government given any thought to harassment of graduates with a view to repayment? Are the Government aware that in other countries where such schemes exist, default is on a large scale but, more importantly, default occurs in graduates who originate from so-called lower socio-economic groups? Is it not therefore a serious matter that a private sector company might disproportionately harass such people? Have the Government given any thought to the repayment of loans from graduates who emigrate? What will happen there? Who will bear the costs of default? Will the Government bear them rather than the company?
Further, the Statement says that the sums of money are lower than those which one or two expert commentators have suggested might arise. Will the Secretary of State make publicly available the basis of his calculations that end up with these apparently very low figures? In other words, can it be explained to us how this range of figures has been arrived at?

37
My last question is this. Is the Government's commitment to these figures, or is it to whatever the costs will turn out to be, no matter what they are? In other words, the figures are illustrative, but what the Government are determined to do is to have the loan scheme, no matter what the costs are.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the Statement. I welcome the deferment for graduates on low incomes. On the zero real interest rate, perhaps the noble Viscount will confirm that at present that means a nominal interest rate of 8.3 per cent. I wish to ask the noble Viscount also about the reference to "a short Bill". Perhaps I may express the hope that it will not be a Bill consisting entirely of framework, but that there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss the details of the scheme which may need a good deal of scrutiny.
I should like also to ask about the remark in paragraph 4 that the Statement is:
"subject to the satisfactory outcome of the contractual negotiations".
I wish to know what negotiations are still in progress. How far does this Statement represent an agreement between the Government and the banks? How far does it represent a unilateral statement about negotiations still in progress? I also wish to ask about the figures for costs given in paragraph 7 of the Statement. The Statement refers to the range of costs indicated in the preparatory work. The Statement does not say whose preparatory work is involved.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am very interested in the basis of these figures. I particularly wish to know whether the figures for the cost of administration are accepted by the banks, or whether the figures are still a matter of dispute. I note the phrase about them being much lower than the figures that we have read in the papers. I know the noble Viscount does not believe everything he reads in the papers. However, in the Independent today a figure (which is said to originate from Price Waterhouse) is mentioned, of £150 million a year for the cost of administration, and £130 million a year for the cost of bad debts. This is a somewhat extreme discrepancy. However, I should be very interested in some examination of how such a discrepancy can have arisen. We may need to think further about this aspect. It follows from this that I should like to know whether the figures given on page 43 of the White Paper, which indicate that there will be a net reduction on the public sector borrowing requirement by the year 2002, still stand. If those figures are to be changed, precisely what kind of revision is needed?
Finally, I wish to know whether, with the costs of administration fully calculated, this scheme will result in a net decrease in public expenditure. If it is not to result in a net decrease in public expenditure, I wish to know precisely why the Government are justifying its introduction. Is it simply because it is for the good of the students' souls?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have been asked more questions from the noble Lord and the noble Earl speaking from the Opposition Front Benches than I have been asked in all the time I have been
38
here. I am most grateful for their responses to the Statement. However, as regards my responses to their questions, they may not be so grateful, although I shall do my best. I am grateful to both the noble Earl and the noble Lord for saying that they did not want to use the time for asking questions on the Statement in discussing the principle of top-up loans. We shall have opportunities to do that on other occasions.
Regarding the Bill, I cannot say very much about it. However, I can tell the noble Lord that his question whether it will be introduced in this Session is clearly a hypothetical one. I shall try to answer as many questions as I can. Those I do not answer—as I could not take them all down—will be answered in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the value of the loan. That will be increased over time until it equals a grant. The loan administrator is to be a company formed by the banks, and there will be appeal machinery. I cannot say at this stage which banks will take part—that is for them to announce. The administration costs will be accounted for publicly. The repayment period will be five to 10 years, depending on circumstances.
As regards default, one of the big advantages of using the banks to run this scheme is that they have more expertise in recovering debts than any other institution. As for emigrants, they will still owe the debt, wherever they are. However, the default cost will be taken by the Government. The cost figures, which both the noble Earl and the noble Lord asked about, derive from a feasibility study that the banks commissioned.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me four questions. The first one concerned the Bill. I cannot speculate in advance of the Queen's Speech. The House will of course have an opportunity of debating any legislation.
On the subject of contractual negotiation, the banks have indicated their willingness in principle to administer the loan scheme, but that is subject to detailed agreement on the terms. The cost figure quoted comes from the feasibility study which was undertaken for the banks by independent consultants. Concerning the effect on the PSBR, the White Paper did not estimate administrative costs. These have to be added to the figures in Annex E; but I can say that they are greatly outweighed by the savings to the taxpayer. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the figures of cost. They are illustrative, and the Government are committed to introducing the scheme.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on this Bench, I also wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. He need not worry that I shall subject him to a similar barrage of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was quite right to say that this is not the occasion to debate the merits or demerits of the scheme, although we on these Benches feel strongly that a graduate tax, which was the scheme that was also approved by the vice-chancellors, would have been a great deal fairer and a great deal simpler and cheaper to administer.

39
However, that is not the point that is being discussed this afternoon.
I wish the noble Viscount to clarify a matter in paragraph 6 of the Statement. In that paragraph we are told that:
"the obligation to repay will be deferred when a graduate's income falls below given levels in relation to average national income".
Will the noble Viscount tell us what level the Government have selected? There was speculation in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that the level would be 85 per cent. of national average income. Is that the percentage that the Government are going for? If that is the case, I suggest that it is extremely low, given that the average graduate tends to earn through life something like 110 per cent. of average national income. To start at a level of 85 per cent. would in effect, to use a colloquial expression, clobber those who wish to enter low paid but valuable social professions like teaching and social work. This is an important point, and I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could clarify that.
Finally, if the Government are determined to go ahead with the scheme, will they undertake to monitor it against the age participation rate, and to consider swiftly something different if numbers do not increase as Mr. Baker professes to want? After all, he has committed himself to doubling the student population. That is an aim that we all applaud, although we are not happy that this is exactly the right way to go about that.
Mr. Robert Jackson, in a recent interview with the education correspondent of the Independent, stated that:
"by the latter part of the next decade, student loans will make it possible to increase considerably the supply of higher education. If not 'I will come on bended knee (to apologise) whatever I am doing then.'.".
We do not know what Mr. Robert Jackson will be doing in the mid-1990s. If he is not in the administration—we think that is unlikely—that comment will not help very much. To back up Mr. Jackson's undertaking, will the Government commit themselves to monitoring student figures? If those figures are not going in the direction which the Secretary of State and everyone else wants, will the Government come back with a more feasible scheme?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to comment on his last few sentences. However, on the repayment threshold, the White Paper suggested a level of 85 per cent. of average income. That still needs consideration, and has not yet been settled. However, I am quite sure my right honourable friend will take note of everything that has been said.
5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I remind the noble Viscount, with respect, that when the scheme was originally announced to this House, I pointed out that it was a very outline affair in which the collaboration of the financial institutions had not been attained. I further pointed out that it was not
40
possible to discuss the merits of the details of the scheme until we knew the financial figures involved. Now we are treated to another Statement which again leaves these questions unanswered, because this is only an agreement on principle. It is still subject to the contract. Until we know whether or not the financial institutions are satisfied with what they are offered, the scheme cannot be considered as a concrete scheme which universities are in a position to discuss with their prospective students in the light of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Therefore, the House has a right to be somewhat disappointed. We have had two bites at the cherry. When will the scheme be completed so that we are able to discuss it? When we get the Bill apparently. Will there be an announcement before the presentation of the Bill as to what the arrangements with the financial institutions are? That is vital, because every pound that goes to meet expenses, whether in collection or in dealing with defaulters, is a pound less for educational support. It is subtracted from the sum available for students in higher education. Therefore I think that it is unreasonable not to expect us to press the Government on those points.
Finally I shall take up very briefly a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Are the Government prepared to set out in detail why they believe this to be a more economical scheme than the scheme for recovering loans through the operation of income tax or national insurance—which does not involve these complicated calculations about where people stand in the table of incomes—which has been worked out, unlike this scheme, in the greatest possible detail by economists at the London School of Economics? If that scheme is rejected, can we be told the basis of the figures on which the scheme involving financial institutions is said to be cheaper?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend is not satisfied with the Statement which I have repeated. It is at least an advance on the last one, and I expect that there will be another one in the near future. I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the questions he has asked.
We have had discussions with a number of banks and other financial institutions. My right honourable friend is clear that there will be substantial interest in participating in the scheme, subject to the negotiation of the final contract. In particular it is clear that major clearing banks will be ready to participate in the scheme. I cannot say which individual banks and other financial institutions will take part in the scheme. As I cannot say that yet, I cannot give any further details. That must be a decision for them, but from assurances given personally to my right honourable friend I am confident of sufficient interest to make the operating company viable.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, this scheme may indeed be an improvement on the last scheme or Statement, but if so it is a very small improvement. I should like to press the noble Viscount on one or two points which have been touched on. Without wishing to

41
debate the merits or de-merits of the graduate tax suggested by the vice-chancellors and others, are we to take it that that has now been totally rejected by the Government? May we also take it that any link with social security has also been totally rejected, whatever its merits or de-merits, and is no longer in the Government's mind?
If that is so can the Minister tell us why post-graduates are still excluded from the scheme? Can he also say whether the costs which he outlined include the profit which he tells us the financial institutions will demand and whether it is entirely in the hands of financial institutions to pursue the defaulters on the loans? Are we handing over the entire management of the loans, including the pursuit of defaulters and the pursuit of those who have gone abroad, to financial institutions? If so, are those costs included in the administrative costs which the Minister mentioned?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, again I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord—I can now, if I can read the note. The graduate tax/national insurance complex which he mentioned does not bear on all graduates. The whole point of the top-up loan is that it does not involve a means test. The scheme will be simple to operate in that every undergraduate will be able to go with a certificate into any branch of a bank operating the scheme and receive his loan. As the noble Lord said, post-graduates are not affected by the scheme; they continue as now.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am in no way critical of the way in which my noble friend presented the Statement, but can he say what is the point of making a Statement at all? It said nothing new; it does not indicate anything which would enable anyone to find out what it is all about. I should have thought that it ought to have been delayed until some agreement had been made with the financial institutions on what is involved, as has come out in the various questions. After paying tribute to my noble friend for the delightful way in which he always reads Statements, I ask him what was the point of making this one if there was nothing new to say?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it was a decision by my right honourable friend to make a Statement in another place. The Government offered the opposition parties this Statement and asked them if they wanted it repeated in this House. They said that they wanted it repeated. I have repeated it.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I share all the misgivings and dissatisfaction that have been expressed from the Benches opposite? Nothing is clear and final. With regard to paragraph 7 of the Statement, which states that the range indicated in the preparatory work is from £8.3 million to £11.5 million for start-up costs and £10.4 million to £14 million for annual operating costs, can the Minister tell us how many students are assumed and by how many students it is expected that figure will increase in years to come?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on that point. I can assure the House that I shall convey the views expressed in the House this afternoon to my right honourable friend.

Electricity Bill
5.6 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 63.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 225 and 226:
Page 47, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) one shall be designated as the generating company;")
Page 47, line 28, after ("two") insert ("or more")
The noble Lord said: If I were to move the amendments it would inevitably involve going over much of the same ground which was well trodden during our debate on the previous amendments. With great effort I shall resist the temptation to take up the Committee's time explaining why they are not wrecking amendments either by intent or by effect. Therefore I do not move them.
[Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 226ZA not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 226ZB:
Page 48, line 2, after ("liabilities") insert ("including contingent liabilities")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 226ZB it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 226ZC. The amendments are, as are a number of amendments which follow over the next few pages of the Marshalled List, designed to clarify what is in the Bill so that we understand fully its nature.
There is an accounting theory that "liabilities" do not include contingent liabilities. Clearly the generating board has contingent liabilities, as does the Electricity Council. I shall not go through those liabilities but many of them are guarantees which both the generating board and the Electricity Council make. We need to be satisfied that they are covered in the Bill as drafted and that there is no necessity for an expression such as I am suggesting in the amendment to cover that point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the amendment to confirm that Clause 63(1) requires the CEGB to make a scheme to transfer all its property, rights and liabilities to successor companies. There are no exceptions to that general obligation.
In the context of statutory transfers the word "liabilities" includes contingent liabilities. Therefore the contingent liabilities of the CEGB will indeed be allocated by the transfer scheme and will be vested in the successor companies to the CEGB.
As regards the contingent liabilities of the Electricity Council—the other amendment that the noble Lord addressed—the same remarks obtain, but, in the context of statutory transfer, the word "liabilities" is a reference to legal liabilities. I make

43
that point because I think that an accountant would view a contingent liability as something rather different and something for which provision should be made in the company's accounts. Let us take, for example, the costs of decommissioning a nuclear power station in the future. While the power station is operating, there is no legal liability for decommissioning, and so nothing to transfer. Any obligations that arise in the future will fall on the owner of the power station. The Bill operates to transfer legal liabilities of the CEGB at the transfer date. That would include liabilities from actions of the CEGB before the transfer date, even though at the transfer date no one was aware that the liability existed.
I hope that that clarification will reassure the noble Lord and that he may thus feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I accept—since he has said so—that "liabilities" here represents legal liabilities which include the accounting definition of contingent liabilities. If that is what I have understood him to say, I am satisfied so far as that point goes. Will he then kindly tell me what will happen to Electricity Council loans that have Treasury exchange cover? Those are loans that are liabilities to the Electricity Council, but have a contingent liability to the Treasury. Will that contingent liability to the Treasury equally be passed across, or is there some other arrangement for that?
The Earl of Dundee: The only accepted rights and liabilities to that obligation are those set out in Clause 63(6) which concern corporation tax because of the residual Electricity Council's continuing responsibility for the pre-vesting tax liabilities of the electricity boards and electricity stock where the Electricity Council's rights and liabilities are to be transferred to the Treasury. In the context of statutory transfers, I again confirm that the word "liabilities" includes contingent liabilities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the noble Earl include in "electricity stock" foreign currency obligations incurred by the Electricity Council?
The Earl of Dundee: No.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 226ZC not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 226ZD:
Page 48, line 9, at end insert—
("(5A) Any company nominated as a successor company under the above sections shall have a duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and for securing the public enjoyment thereof, on any land transferred to the company, whether it is held for the purposes of generating electricity or otherwise.
44
(5B) Where any company nominated as a successor company wishes to dispose of any land in a National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or land which has been designated by virtue of its scientific or geological interest, or is designated under this section by virtue of its natural beauty, amenity or recreational value, it shall not do so without the express consent of the Secretary of State. In giving such consent, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council and shall not give his consent without first ensuring that the requirements of section 5A(1) of this section have been satisfied. The Secretary of State shall, in addition, require any land offered for sale to be offered first to a competent body, and shall not approve the sale to any third party without the provision of a management agreement and/or restrictive covenant prior to sale for the purposes of securing the conservation of such land.
(5C) For the purposes of this section—
a "competent body" is a body whose inclusion on a list of competent bodies held by the Sectetary of State has been agreed by the Countryside Commission, Nature Conservancy Council, English Heritage, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and, in the case of Wales, Cadw.").
The noble Lord said: We have had a number of discussions in Committee on environmental matters and the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she would have a close look at the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, the other day with a view to the Government perhaps bringing forward something at a later stage.
The object of the amendment is to bring to the Government's attention the land held by successor companies of the CEGB. I should declare a small interest in the matter as President of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. The CEGB is the owner of large tracts of land in Snowdonia. It owns more land in Snowdonia than does the Welsh Water Authority. Since the question of the land owned by future water companies has occupied much of noble Lords' time, it is only proper that the land owned by the CEGB, which, as I understand it, will be passed on to the privatised companies, should occupy some of the Committee's attention.
According to the amendment, land in national parks, SSSIs and other areas declared for the purposes of the subsection, could not be sold without first being offered to competent bodies. By "competent bodies" we have in mind national parks and local authorities as well as voluntary conservation bodies. If they are so sold, they should be subject to management agreements or restrictive covenants.
I believe that the amendment, which is promoted not only by the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, but also by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other bodies associated with it, tacks on to environmental amendments that we have discussed previously. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to look at the amendment rather closely to see whether there is a point that needs to be settled here. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I must say at the outset that I believe that the analogy with the industry to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has drawn our attention, is a false analogy. I should point out that, although the noble Lord has referred to certain areas of land in Snowdonia and so on, the water industry owns very large areas of open land to which

45
the public has access. I believe that, in figures, those amount to 430,000 acres of which some 8,000 acres are in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, whereas the CEGB owns just over 48,000 acres.
Obviously, for safety and security reasons, operational sites in the electricity industry are subject to restrictions on access; for example, safety clearances are required around high voltage plants. I am sure that the noble Lord accepts all that. But it is difficult to see how National Power could secure the public enjoyment of land on which a nuclear power station is situated, for example, while it also has a duty under its nuclear site licence to take all necessary steps to prevent unauthorised persons from entering the site. Nevertheless, where possible, the CEGB and the Scottish boards already encourage recreational use of land. I am sure that that is true of the areas of Snowdonia to which the noble Lord referred.
One of the ways of off-setting the impact of a power station on the environment is to provide nature trails and wildlife reserves. However, as the noble Lord said, we have been through all that, I can assure him that, certainly in relation to this part of the amendment, I shall take the points into account when looking at the general environment picture that we discussed last week. I hope that we can bring forward a response to meet the concerns.
In addition to the point about securing public enjoyment of sites owned by the successor companies to the present boards, the amendment seeks to put controls on the disposal of land in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. As I have said, I could understand the proposal if the electricity industry presently owned large areas of open land. My understanding was that it does not, apart, obviously, from the exception in Wales to which the noble Lord referred. In that context, the development that has been made at Dinorwic in respect of a power storage facility is a most environmentally sympathetic one and has been extremely well conceived.
However, I should say that the analogy with the water industry is misconceived. When he moved the relevant amendment to the Water Bill on 8th June, my noble friend Lord Hesketh said that no other industry had land holdings of comparable scale and significance to those of the water industry. He went on to explain that one of the reasons for moving the amendment was that much water authority land was of quite exceptional beauty and environmental quality.
I therefore believe that there is no reason why that sort of restriction should be put upon the electricity supply industry. The electricity supply industry should not be picked out in that way when similar restrictions do not apply to other industries, but do apply to the water industry because it has clearly been proved that that is a special case. Therefore with the assurance that I shall consider the first part of the amendment in the general environmental conclusions to which we come, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my reasons for not being able to agree to the amendment that he proposes regarding the disposal of land.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. Clause 63 refers not only to supply companies but also to the transmission company. We do not yet know how the land owned by the CEGB will be split between the supply companies and the transmission company, that is to say, the national grid. Large tracts of Snowdonia are owned by the Central Electricity Generating Board but they are used not for putting up supply installations such as nuclear power stations, other than Trawsfynydd which we shall ignore for the purposes of this argument, but are used by the national grid for putting down supply lines which in fact disfigure the landscape.
The worry in CPRW is that that may be overlooked in the course of consideration of this Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for taking my arguments on board, considering the matter and investigating whether there are proper concerns. If she wishes a delegation from CPRW to attend on her to explain exactly what this is about in Wales—and I am sure that there are areas in England which may go to the grid system and which are in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—I can certainly arrange such a meeting. In the light of her remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 226ZE:
Page 48, line 11, at end insert ("or Value Added Tax").
The noble Lord said: This is again a clarificatory amendment. When establishing rights and liabilities with respect to corporation tax it is difficult to see how value added tax will be treated. Accounting treatment of value added tax and the ins and outs (if I may put it that way) at a year-end are extremely difficult to compute. While it is possible, with great dificulty, to make tax computations with respect to corporation tax (these are complicated matters), value added tax, if you close it off at the year-end, is extremely difficult to compute. It has to be done, but I am assuming that accepted rights and liabilities will include the balance on the value added tax. Nevertheless, no doubt I shall have some comment from the Government Front Bench on this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: Clause 63(2) requires the Electricity Council to make a scheme for the transfer of all its property, rights and liabilities to a successor company or companies. There are only two exceptions to this which I mentioned a short while ago. Those are set out in subsection (6); namely, corporation tax and, by way of reference to Clause 87, British Electricity stock. We shall have the opportunity to discuss corporation tax when we reach Clause 86 and Schedule 11.
For our present purposes I think it is enough to note that we believe that it would not be right for the council's corporation tax liability to be devolved to the successor companies to the electricity boards. This is because the way in which the electricity supply industry in England and Wales is taxed for corporation tax purposes is unique: the Electricity

47
Council is the sole taxpayer. The arrangements that we are setting in place to deal with corporation tax liabilities recognise that fundamental point.
As for British Electricity stock, the council's rights and liabilities are to be transferred to the Treasury, as I also mentioned a little while ago. As I made clear, all other liabilities including contingent liabilities are to be transferred to the successor companies in accordance with the scheme. VAT, however, is rather different from corporation tax. I hope that the Committee will bear with me for just a moment in a rather detailed and technical explanation.
There was a group registration for VAT purposes for the whole of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. I understand that that group registration was terminated on 1st April 1989. While the group registration was in force the Electricity Council as the representative member of the group was liable to account for the VAT due in respect of supplies made by any of the existing statutory bodies—for example, the boards and the council itself. However, each of those statutory bodies was jointly and severally liable for any VAT due from the council.
From 2nd April onwards each of the existing statutory bodies has been separately registered for VAT purposes and therefore each body is solely liable to pay VAT due in respect of the supplies it makes. Any VAT liability of an existing statutory body which is outstanding immediately before the transfer date, whether in respect of the period before the transfer date or the period after that date, will be inherited by the relevant successor company. There is no reason why the Electricity Council should be treated in any different way.
In summary—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will feel able to agree—it is not constructive to make specific provision to deal with any outstanding VAT liabilities. In view of that I ask him, if he sees fit, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. After the group registration of the Electricity Council for VAT purposes lapsed on 1st April 1989, what will be the treatment of the balance as at 1st April 1989, which of course continues because the value added tax is difficult to compute and indeed difficult to collect? What will happen to that on vesting?
The Earl of Dundee: My understanding is that 1st April 1989 is the cut off date and therefore that liability thereafter will devolve on the new company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Earl say, since the Electricity Council will cease to exist, who will take up the liability of that council?
The Earl of Dundee: I do not think that the year-end calculation of VAT will be a problem as the boards are now responsible for their VAT calculations. Any work about the end of 1988–89 will fall to the successor companies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am rather surprised at that answer because I should have thought that the group registration which the Electricity Council had up to 1st April 1989 would have imposed on the Electricity Council a necessity to make up its accounts to the end of March this year. If there were an imbalance between collected VAT and uncollected VAT and VAT paid out, there would be an outstanding balance which would have to be transferred to one of the companies to which the whole of the Electricity Council is to be devolved. Perhaps the noble Earl can help me on that matter.
The Earl of Dundee: It may be of some help to the noble Lord if I tell him that the Electricity Council's liability will be transferred to the successor companies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Then I have to ask the noble Earl in what proportion?
The Earl of Dundee: I should think fully but if not fully then in a suitable proportion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Earl will be kind enough to write to me on how this will be treated between the different successor companies.
The Earl of Dundee: I shall be delighted to inform the noble Lord to a greater extent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Transfer of property etc. of Scottish Boards]:
[Amendments Nos. 226ZF and 226ZG not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Schemes under sections 63 and 64]:
[Amendment No. 226ZH not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 226ZJ:
Page 49, line 13, leave out ("transferor") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: Clause 65 deals with the operation of schemes under Sections 63 and 64 and this amendment seeks to ensure that it is the Secretary of State who should consider what supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions should be appropriate rather than the transferor. It seems to me odd to have a scheme which the Secretary of State has no power to change. I have made that point before in the earlier amendments that we discussed. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could comment, if he is to respond to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the chance to discuss in a little detail the transfer scheme provisions of the Bill which are so fundamental to our privatisation

49
proposals. Indeed, it is by way of transfer schemes that the physical restructuring of the generation and transmission sides of the industry envisaged in our proposals will take place.
A transfer scheme is the legal means by which the assets of the CEGB, the Electricity Council and the Scottish boards are to be allocated to the successor companies. The assets may be allocated in a scheme by referring specifically to the assets in question—that is, by way of a list of assets under Clause 65(2)(a)—or by referring to a particular part of the undertaking of the existing bodies, such as the transmission division of the CEGB, under Clause 65(2)(b), or by a mixture of these. In addition, Clause 65(2) allows the transferor—for example, the body making the scheme—to make such "supplemental, incidental and consequential" provision as the transferor considers right.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is that a scheme should make only such "supplemental, incidental and consequential provision" as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Let me explain why we consider that such an amendment would not be helpful in this case.
Under Clauses 63 and 64 of the Bill, the CEGB, the Electricity Council and the Scottish boards are required to make a scheme for the division of their undertakings between the successor companies. As I have explained, Clause 65(2) indicates the manner in which the scheme can be made. It is fitting that initially it should be the relevant parts of the industry themselves that make the scheme since they are best placed to know the nature of their assets and liabilities and to allocate them accordingly. Once prepared the scheme is submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval under Clause 65(3).
There is thus a clear line of responsibility with the industry responsible for drafting the scheme in the first instance and the Secretary of State ultimately responsible for ensuring that the transfer scheme achieves the necessary allocation on an equitable basis and to the desired timescale. The amendment of the noble Lord would confuse that line of responsibility and would be inconsistent with the drafting of Clauses 63 and 64.
Given that the industry is responsible for making a scheme, it is surely right that it should have the job of making such "supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions" as might be necessary to make it effective. The industry bodies have the knowledge and understanding of their undertakings to enable them to decide on the additional provisions necessary as a consequence of the division of an undertaking or to assist the newly created undertakings to function independently.
I hope that in the light of these remarks the noble Lord may feel reassured on the point.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I take the point that he is making. Amendment No. 226B—which I shall not now be moving—taken together with the amendment to which I am now speaking, was designed to make sure that we shift the burden that is laid on the
50
Secretary of State under subsection (3) to subsection (2) and thus save a certain amount of space in the Bill. If the noble Earl considers that that is not the right way to do it, so be it. That is the way that parliamentary counsel work. I shall be very grateful if he will confirm that.
The Earl of Dundee: If we were to attempt to alter what we have here we should be going against the lines of communication to the Secretary of State that are laid down in the Bill at present. We would get the balance wrong with regard to the involvement of the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl has pointed out a difference between us. I believe that the Secretary of State should be intimately involved in the schemes as they are being developed and not just be passive at the end of the day in approving, disapproving or modifying a scheme. As I said on the earlier amendment that we discussed, he should be there discussing how the CEGB breaks up its business.
I understand that the Government do not take that view. It is a principle to which we shall wish to return at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 49, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) Any transfer scheme shall oblige the companies nominated by the Secretary of State under section 64 above to establish their headquarters within their respective areas of supply or distribution.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 226A stands in my name and in the names of other noble Lords and a noble Lady from Scotland who sit in different parts of the Committee. The amendment would require the head office of a new supplying company to be within its area of activity. The Ministers will have guessed that we have in mind the successors to the two Scottish boards, especially the North Board, which since its creation has had its head office in Edinburgh well to the south of its area. The amendment is inspired in my case by a lively curiosity concerning why that should have been so and what is likely in the future. It is exploratory and is not designed as a jewel to be added to the Bill.
Why should the successor to the North Board not have its head office in the North Board's area? There may have been an argument in the past for the head office being close to the Scottish Office in Edinburgh. Whichever of my noble friends replies to this debate may have something to say about that today. I remind the Committee that the Scottish Office has been responsible for electricity in Scotland, a situation which was not changed when the Department of Energy was created in 1974. Proximity to the Scottish Office has no doubt made it easy for officials, both of the Scottish Office and the board, to meet on a day-to-day basis. Surely there will be less need for that after privatisation.
Each of the Scottish boards generates and distributes its electricity, in contrast to the situation in England and Wales. It means that they deal directly with their customers of all kinds. The North Board has substantial offices in its area carrying out central services; for example, at Elgin and Dingwall, I am not disputing that. It is the fact that the head office is not in its area, which causes surprise. It would be a good exercise in public relations by the new company if it decided on a new head office in the north. The consumers in its area would appreciate the move to be among them.
The present chairman and his predecessor have both been based in northern Scotland. Their homes have been there. I cannot foresee any personal convenience to others who may be concerned or involved in the future. I shall refer to earlier chairmen, starting with the first, Tom Johnston, the originator of the hydro-board concept. Having just been Secretary of State for Scotland, he no doubt would have wished in the early days to be close to the Scottish Office at the time when the new body and the new hydro schemes were starting. As a result, the large majority of hydro-electric generation in the United Kingdom is now in the North Board's area.
At the beginning of the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I had a brief exhange about pumped storage. This is a significant element in the North Board's area because it can produce extra electricity at peak times. However, it brings me to another former chairman, the first Lord Strathclyde, the grandfather of the stalwart Lord in Waiting who is now on our Government Front Bench, although not with us at the moment. Twenty-five years ago, as a junior Minister concerned with electricity in Scotland among other things, I was engaged in a tour of the schemes during a Recess. The chairman, the Lord Strathclyde of that day, was very enthusiastic about one of the pumped storage schemes then being constructed on and within Ben Cruachan. An artificial loch was being created on top of a power station in a cavern within the mountain. Ben Cruachan over the centuries has been sacred to the Clan Campbell and indeed has been its war cry in the past. Lord Strathclyde was determined that I should have the best possible view of the work that was proceeding and had especially prepared a bucket on wires which was to take me over the loch. The bucket was normally used for cement. The Scottish Office officials with me objected, but Lord Strathclyde knew about my disability and had looked after that. I would not have to walk or stand, but the Scottish Office officials still objected. I am afraid that I missed the opportunity of seeing the work from that special viewpoint. Later I found out that the Scottish Office officials had heard that the operator of the bucket machinery, for movement and tipping was a MacDonald. The temptation to tip a Campbell into the loch on his sacred mountain might have been too great to resist.
To establish a new head office in the North Board's area and give up premises in Edinburgh would be a good example of dispersal within Scotland to the Scottish regions, and dispersal of decision-making
52
too. I would add another point which is not as lighthearted as it may sound. Anything which helps to ease the parking problems in Edinburgh would also be a blessing. Noble Lords from Scotland will know what I am referring to. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I do not believe that there is much I can usefully add to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said. This might appear to be a very small matter and rather trivial, but there is a great feeling in Scotland at present, and has been for a number of years, that those who control our destinies and our supplies are all too remote. To people in the North of Scotland Edinburgh is almost as remote as London. One cannot get at the boss. If something goes wrong one cannot go to the head man to complain, at least not without considerable difficulty. I do not know quite where the noble Lord envisages the office of the North of Scotland hydro board or its successor should be situated.
I can assure the noble Lord that parking problems are extremely acute in Aberdeen and Perth; I do not know about Dundee, but I suspect that they are as bad there. I do not know what can be done about that. For reasons of remoteness I should like to support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I also have my name to the amendment and am delighted to support it. There is a feeling in Scotland towards the North. People who live in other parts of Scotland feel that strongly. I found that as a junior Minister any time I was near the North of Scotland, especially Inverness, I made a point on my own of contacting the Highlands and Islands Development Board to visit it as a courtesy. I discovered that every other Scottish Minister quite independently had decided to do the same thing. We all had the feeling that somehow or other we should spread the decision-making process as widely as possible in Scotland. I found both junior and senior Ministers in different departments felt that they should do that. I believe that the HIDB has been a boon in many ways, psychologically as well as in purely practical terms.
I can add a little to the remark of noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that he could not understand why the SSEB, HIDB and the hydro board headquarters were in Edinburgh and not some other place. However, I know that when the Scottish gas board was set up—this is absolutely true—it was quite obvious that the headquarters should have been in Glasgow because the West of Scotland was by far the biggest supplier and consumer of gas. However the board made the decision to have the headquarters in Edinburgh by a vote, which was widely known, of three to five. It was quite apparent that three members of the five lived in Edinburgh and the other two lived elsewhere. Thus on a purely personal basis it was decided to have it in Edinburgh. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, explained the problems at the beginning of the hydro board and it was important that it should be near the Scottish Office as it was to be administered by the

53
Scottish Office. It was all a great experiment in many ways. Thank goodness it was a great success as well.
However, we do not need that closeness now. We have information technology. People can contact head office in London, Edinburgh or anywhere else. They can contact the director, who presumably for a number of reasons will have an office in Edinburgh. If the headquarters of the hydro board is in Inverness or Aberdeen it can be in close contact with him using modern technological devices.
However, there is another point. If the director is in Edinburgh and the hydro board's headquarters is also in Edinburgh together with that of the South of Scotland Board, there is the meeting of a very inbred group of people all the time. However, if one group was coming down for occasional meetings or the director going to a headquarters meeting—I favour Inverness—that could give a slightly different slant on matters.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, said that the Scots feel that London is less remote than Edinburgh. I can assure her that Glasgow people feel exactly the same in that respect. I believe it would be good for decision makers to be away from the cocktail party round one tends to find in major cities. It would be good for the area in which the new board was set up. It would certainly be good for Scotland and I could not see it doing anything other than saving money by being located elsewhere rather than cluttering up Edinburgh or Glasgow. I am sure that this is a worthwhile amendment and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.
I do not think we should be too happy just to receive assurances, unless the assurances are backed by something else. I do not doubt for a moment the word of the noble Minister and that he will not give an assurance with complete honesty. But I remind him that in the past few years Scotland was given an assurance about a rather important headquarters in Edinburgh. Once the deeds were signed the promises seemed to be torn up. We would want a slightly better assurance than we were given then, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I am delighted to be able to support the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The Committee will note that there is a galaxy of Scottish talent associated with the amendment, including my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. As a Welsh-speaking Celt I should like to speak in support of the amendment.
It deals with transfers under Section 64. However, it amends Section 65, which deals not only with transfers under the previous section, which are limited to Scotland, but also generally with transfers under Section 63. My ulterior motive for speaking is to ask about the position of transfers in Wales. Perhaps the Minister is unable to answer now but will do so hereafter. Would it not be proper that any transfer scheme should also apply to companies nominated by the Secretary of State in relation to Wales to establish their headquarters within the respective areas of supply and distribution in Wales?
The Duke of Atholl: I support the amendment, which has one good feature over many such amendments. It is that it does not stipulate the
54
exact place where the headquarters must be. When Parliament passed the Countryside Act for Scotland it stipulated that the headquarters of the Countryside Commission for Scotland must be in or near Perth. I have a shrewd idea that the commission found it difficult to obtain suitable property in the area because the moment anyone saw it approaching the price was immediately increased enormously. By not stipulating the exact place the amendment overcomes that difficulty and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Somers: I also support the amendment. I was most struck by a comment made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun; namely, that one can never contact the head man of any organisation. That is most true, as I know from painful experience.
Further, if one's head office is in London, for example, but one is controlling a distant activity in the countryside, how can one take any interest or have any enthusiasm to ensure that it is working properly, that the staff are contented and that clients are receiving what they want? I believe that this is an excellent amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: I should have wished to attach my name to the amendment but my commitments to the Council of Europe are such that I did not expect to be present in Committee this afternoon. However, my arrangements altered and I am able to be here.
I wish to support the amendment. I also wish to remind the Committee once again that I was chairman of the hydro board between 1978 and 1982. I do not mention that fact for any egotistical reason but in order to point out that during my period in office I received almost as many letters from consumers in the area of the hydro board on this subject than on any other.
Although the amendment makes reference to boards in the plural—and properly so—we know that the South of Scotland Electricity Board is in Cathcart House in Glasgow. It is likely that the successor company will remain there. However, we know that the hydro board headquarters are at 16 Rothesay Terrace in Edinburgh and that its headquarters is outside the area of its territorial responsibility. Frankly, that is absurd.
There was a historical reason for that which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. When Tom Johnston set up the hydro board in 1943 he made available a smallish room at the end of the ministerial corridor in St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh. As the hydro schemes began to develop and the planning increased, it was necessary to move from those premises, and so the hydro board moved to 16 Rothesay Terrace.
Today the board owns the whole of one side of the terrace and about half of the other side. That is entirely appropriate and I make no criticism because it is a devolved board structure. There are four area offices, in Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Elgin. There is also a communications office in Dingwall. However, the specialist branches—that is, high-tech engineering and professional administration—are to be found in Rothesay Terrace.

55
During my period as chairman the board discussed the question of headquarters location. Although there were those sympathetic to change, always the argument was that the professional advisers need to be close to the Scottish Office and that they need fairly rapid ease of communication with London, the Treasury and the Department of Energy. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, although that is important when one is referring to a nationalised board, which is the present position, it is much less important for a successor company which will be in the private sector.
I do not believe that there is a case for the retention of a board's headquarters outside the area of its responsibility. The further argument which has been adduced previously and is still mentioned is that it is difficult to recruit the right level of professional support if one moves away from the delights of the most beautiful and magnificent city of Edinburgh. However, together with my noble friend Lord Carmichael, I believe that the vast hinterland of Scotland has its own delight and recompense for those who stay there. Anywhere in Scotland where there is a major population centre one has, comparatively speaking, ease of communication.
If the successor company to the hydro board were to decide to move within its area of responsibility I do not believe that it could be argued that that would be an unreasonable financial burden and on-cost imposed upon the successor company. The sale of Rothesay Terrace—that is all of one side and half of the other—which is a prime Edinburgh West End site, would provide to the successor company a most substantial profit, even after the expenses of relocation had been accounted for.
The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is compelling. Surely the measure of support which appears to be emerging from all sides of the Committee cannot be ignored. I am sure that other Members will wish to contribute to the debate. We await the noble Lord's reply with considerable interest and shall withhold further criticism until we have heard what the Minister has to say.
6 P.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: Very briefly I should like to add my voice in support of this amendment. As one who represented a seat on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board area for some 13 years, I can certainly confirm everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said. I am particularly glad that the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was the first name and therefore that he was first to speak to the amendment because his contribution clearly outlined the history.
I should not wish to become involved in any dispute between the Campbells and the MacDonalds but I believe that this is one issue on which they would certainly be united. During my years at Ross and Cromarty I was frequently approached by constituents on this very issue. It was a particularly thorny problem. They were always irritated by the fact that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric
56
Board, despite the vastness of its geographical area, should have its headquarters in Edinburgh.
Throughout the years one of the principal reasons which the people in the board area suspected for the headquarters not moving into their area was that there was very strong resistance from the permament employees at head office who had their children at Edinburgh schools and who did not want to move out because they would then be deprived of the excellent private education available in Edinburgh. That may be so, but it was not a reason acceptable to my constituents and nor is it acceptable to the vast majority of people in the Highlands of Scotland, which probably forms the largest part of the geographical area.
There is now no excuse at all for a company setting up in that area not to have its headquarters within the area which it supplies. We have about four or five cities, all of which can supply the necessities of life and the best quality of life; namely, the office accommodation, the schools and the general requirements needed for headquarters.
I believe that this is a reasonable time to consider the matter, because those of us who have been asking the board to move its headquarters for so many years have always met with a negative answer from Ministers of both persuasions. Indeed I often wrote to the former chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I always received a courteous but unsuccessful reply. I believe that this is a very good idea. We all know that the Government can write into the articles of association whatever they choose, and it may not be advisable to go as far as that. However, I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will give it very serious consideration, particularly in view of the wide party representation, if I can put it that way, from those who have contributed to this debate; in other words, wide representation party-wise on a non-party matter. This is non-political and I hope that the Minister will treat it in that way and do his best to be helpful.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps I may add my voice to the unanimous chorus which supports the amendment. At least it is unanimous until the Minister speaks and I hope that he will not ignore the very considerable support which is evident. In this connection I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I missed the beginning of his speech because I was upstairs watching the last European election result which was declared. I observed there a Scottish Nationalist marching with pipers to declare that she had succeeded in winning the only non-Labour Party seat in the whole of Scotland. Every other seat had been won by the Labour Party and only that seat in the Highlands was won by the Scottish Nationalists.
That indicates a feeling abroad in Scotland that the Highlands are important and that Highlanders have something to say for themselves. I believe that the Government have suffered in Scotland because they have ignored the feelings of the people there on a number of issues. I hope that they will not continue to do so on this issue because it is a sort of symbol of what people want in Scotland. I am sure that the

57
Minister is sensitive enough to accept that feeling and to translate it into acceptance of this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Having listened to this most interesting debate, it seems to have been exclusively a Scottish issue. However, as I read the words, I am not so sure that it applies only to Scotland. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether it involves any other bodies and whether it will apply to any areas other than Scotland. I shall be very interested to know what is the situation because I believe that we have considered this matter purely from a Scottish point of view during the debate.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): I should like to thank all Members of the Committee and particularly my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for bringing forward this amendment. It gives us an opportunity to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, rightly said is something which concerns very many people in Scotland.
Before I deal with Scotland perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As I understand it, in England and Wales area board headquarters are in the area of each company's operation. The headquarters of the South Wales Electricity Board is in Cardiff and as far as I am aware there are no plans to change that. The headquarters of MANWEB is in Chester, but that covers Merseyside as well as North Wales. Perhaps the noble Lord can deduce from that that is not as politically sensitive as the subject I am about to deal with.
I should like to start by paying tribute to Scottish Office officials for the way in which they dealt with the situation in which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy found himself in that they did not wish to tip a future Scottish Secretary out of a bucket.
This has been a most interesting debate which has focused upon a matter which has received recurring attention in Scotland over the past 45 years or so. When the Act to set up the hydro board was being put through Parliament under the stewardship of the late Tom Johnston even then the question of the location of the board's headquarters was being raised. I know that Tom Johnston took the view then that the hydro board was an all-Scottish venture, the primary intention of which was to promote Highland interests. He had no doubt that appropriate office or offices would be installed in the Highland area, and for his part, so long as the registered office of the board was in Scotland, he would be quite pleased. I register these points now with the intention of returning to them later.
Since the establishment of the board, successive Secretaries of State have taken the view that the location of its headquarters is entirely a matter for the board. The Secretary of State can give no formal direction on this and, under the statutory arrangements which have governed the operations of the board, any move would not be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. The board's policy has been one of maximum delegation of responsibility
58
to local management to a much greater degree than is the practice in the elecricity supply industry as a whole. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who has been Secretary of State for Scotland, will recognise that this is an accurate statement of the legal position.
The extent to which the board's policy has been successful can be gauged by reference to its staffing numbers and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned that. At 31st March 1989 the board employed just under 4,000 staff, and of those just over 300 were employed in the head office in Edinburgh. In other words, only 8 per cent. of the board's total staff were employed at the head office in March of this year. As an indication of the extent to which headquarters' functions have been devolved, the Committee will wish to note that these figures were almost matched by the number and percentage of staff engaged in headquarters functions within the board's area. Therefore, there is clear evidence that Tom Johnston's original intention has been met without statutory requirement. So why do we need a statutory provision now, just as everyone is in the throes of making arrangements for privatisation?
If it is in the interests of the companies to locate within their areas of operation as public electricity suppliers, they will do so. Those interests are not only financial but are also commercial and operational. They relate also to the ability to recruit and retain staff and their ability to relate to the wider GB market for electricity in the interests of their customers and shareholders. Noble Lords will understand that, given its responsibility for the Highlands and Islands, I would have some sympathy with the suggestion that in time the head office of the successor company to the hydro board should be located within its area of operation as a public electricity supplier. However, if that were against its commercial and operational interests and could adversely affect electricity prices for consumers, I could not support it.
My interests in this matter are identical to those of the electricity consumer in the north of Scotland to whom the Government have demonstrated their commitment by preserving common tariffs in the area. In my view it is entirely consistent with that commitment that any move of the head office of the successor company to the hydro board should be left as a matter for the new company to decide upon after a full appraisal of the economic and other factors involved has been undertaken. It is the prerogative of any company to remain free to review and choose the location of its headquarters on its own intitiative. The Scottish successor companies should be no different in that regard.
I have to say to noble Lords who have moved the amendment that the technical effect of the amendment would be to allow the north and south companies to locate their head offices anywhere in Great Britain and to leave obscure the position of the Scottish nuclear company, a fact to which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred. The term "area of supply" used in the amendment could be taken to include England and Wales if the north and south companies were supplying south of the

59
Border as second tier suppliers. That would mean both companies would be specifically allowed in statute to move their headquarters outwith Scotland. I am sure that noble Lords did not intend that that should be the effect of the amendment. I shall be asking my noble friend to withdraw it.
It may help if I place on record that the policy of the hydro board is to keep this matter under periodic review. I do not have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, about the matter. We believe that this is something to which the new north company may wish to turn in due course. But we also believe it would be entirely wrong to attempt by legislation or other means to compel this or any other company to move its head office. Throughout the debate the issue has been well highlighted and has been drawn to the attention of consumers, potential investors and members and employees of the hydro board.
I understand the strong feelings that have been expressed. I understand that the relevance of being near the Scottish Office is very much less than it was before and that communications have improved. I understand too my noble friend's arguments about dispersal. I am also aware, of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said about the headquarters of another company and the problems of assurances. I have looked at this matter. I have looked at the possibility of a requirement in the memorandum and articles of association. However, I feel that it would not be appropriate to write a matter of this kind into memoranda and articles of association.
However, I should like to see, along with the company, whether there is anything we can do, outwith putting this on the face of the Bill, in regard to a flotation prospectus. After all, it is a matter—this is where privatisation comes in—in which shareholders will have an interest. At the end of the day shareholders will, I hope, at any rate in all good companies, be able to influence the board and chairman. I should like to discuss this possibility with the chairman of the board concerned, without commitment, and to return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I ask my noble friend whether he is prepared to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful for the support which has been given to the amendment by all speakers during this debate. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Sanderson said that he proposes without commitment to discuss the situation with the new company in due course.
As I hinted earlier, it would be the best possible start for a new company in this situation for it to decide upon a headquarters in the area. It would be an extremely good public relations move as regards its consumers. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, pointed out, the question of costs would not be an objection because selling property in Edinburgh would probably mean that there would be a surplus.
I made clear that the amendment was exploratory in nature. It has had the intended effect of enabling
60
this matter to be discussed. For those who may think that considerable time has been taken at Committee stage in talking about this point, I hope that it is clear that this is an issue which has caused much irritation over the years in northern Scotland and has produced sheaves of correspondence for Ministers and chairmen of the boards. Therefore it has been well worth while for this matter to have an airing today.
I hope that the message is clear and will get through to the new company in due course. The complication of getting an amendment like this right, and getting the wording right, is very great. It may not be right to place a restriction on one of the new companies which would not be appropriate to the others; for example, where their areas are very small in comparison and where there may be good reason for the headquarters being outside the area. The opinion of consumers in the north board's area has been strongly stated during this debate and I hope that the message will come through clearly at the right moment later on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 226B to 227A not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transfers under sections 63 and 64]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227B:
Page 107, line 46, after ("a") insert ("clearly").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Peston. I should like to explain the nature of the amendments that I have tabled to Schedule 10. These are clarificatory and, to a certain extent, drafting amendments. I hope that the Committee will agree that I may move Amendment No. 227B and then not move the rest of my amendments but speak on schedule stand part and simply go through them so that the Minister will have an opportunity to respond to what are relatively minor amendments. Amendment No. 227B asks that the specification of the part should be clearly indicated in some form or another. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for speaking to Amendment No. 227B and for dealing with Schedule 10. Before we immerse ourselves in any detail, perhaps I may clarify the situation relative to Schedule 10.
There are three broad steps which we have clearly in mind. The first step is to be found in Clauses 62, 63 and 64. These concern the transfer of property, and so on, of the area boards (Clause 62), the CEGB and the Electricity Council (Clause 63), and the Scottish boards (Clause 64) to their respective successor companies. The CEGB and the Scottish boards will each have more than one successor company, while the Electricity Council will cease to exist. These bodies are therefore obliged under Clauses 63 and 64 to prepare transfer schemes for

61
the allocation of their businesses to their successor companies.
The second step is to be found in Clause 65. This clause states what form a transfer scheme may take; that is, how it may be drafted. That clause defines the main powers of the Secretary of State in relation to transfer schemes. The third step is to be found in Clause 66 and Schedule 10, to which Clause 66 gives effect. Schedule 10 is essentially concerned with what might be called tidying-up provisions. In this connection I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the heading of Clause 66, which refers to supplementary provisions. I suggest that the key words are just those; namely, "supplementary provisions". The main job of defining the purpose of the transfer scheme, what form it may take and the role of the Secretary of State, has already been done in Clauses 63, 64 and 65.
In answer to the noble Lord regarding Amendment No. 227B, the key to that amendment, as I understand it, is inserting the word "clearly" in front of "specified". That implies that there could be a contradiction in terms because on the plain meaning of the word something that is "specified" is something that is mentioned in detail. When there is detail, there should be clarity. The language of the Bill requires that a transfer scheme should define with precision any part of the transferor's undertaking. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will scrutinise very closely any transfer scheme in this form to ensure that the specified part is fully defined before he gives the scheme his approval. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord wishes to say on clause stand part. I hope in the light of that important explanation of the purpose of Schedule 10 that he will consider withdrawing Amendment No. 227B.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. That is a very clear explanation of the purpose of Schedule 10. I shall speak to that on the Question whether the schedule shall be agreed to. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 227B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): I understand that none of the further amendments to Schedule 10 is to be moved. Therefore the question is that Schedule 10 as printed be the 10th Schedule to the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 227C:
Page 107, line 46, leave out from ("undertaking") to end of line 47.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may go through one or two of the drafting points that Members of the Committee will recognise in some of my amendments. We have already dealt with "clearly" and "clearly specified". Dealing with paragraph 1(2), I am not entirely happy with the expression "as may be appropriate". I hope the noble Lord will be able to justify it. Neither am I entirely happy as regards the last two sentences of subparagraph (3).
Moving on from there, in subparagraph (5)(a),
"whether on the transfer date, transferee A or transferee B appears to be in greater need",
the "apparence" should be determined by the Secretary of State rather than left in the air as it is. That is also true of the next few lines in which the same expression appears. It also appears in subparagraph (5)(b). Those three points that I make should be taken together.
The next point concerns what is marked, as I understand it, as "main paragraph 2" which is at line 31 on page 108 of the Bill as printed. I hope that the noble Lord is following me. I am glad to have support from the Benches on my right that they can follow even though the noble Lord opposite cannot. As regards paragraph 2(2) I am a little concerned about the second line. It states:
"each of the other transferees (`transferee B')"—
presumably "transferees" is plural and therefore it should be "transferees B, C, D" or any other. "B" is a singular person.
I now move to subparagraph (4) at the top of page 109. I am a little concerned about the procedure that it should be a question of the transferees representing to the Secretary of State rather than the Secretary of State deciding for himself. I believe that the omission of the words at the beginning of the subparagraph and also of the words "without such a representation" might benefit the schedule in drafting. On paragraph 3(3) I now come to a point of greater substance than those I have been referring to hitherto. In my view, it should read,
"The employee or his representative".
The employee should be entitled to appoint a representative who can argue on his behalf. Turning to paragraph 4, which deals with,
"Variation of transfers by agreement",
I wish the Government to consider the insertion of the new clause shown on the Marshalled List which is tabled as Amendment No. 227U. I believe that adds a valuable feature to the schedule. Paragraph 5(1) refers to
"Right to production of documents of title".
I believe that "documents of title" would apply not only to,
"any land or other property",
but any other asset. In my amendment I indicated that. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can speak to that point. As regards paragraph 6 I am a little unclear what it adds up to. I hope the noble Lord can help me on that. Other than that, I do not believe that I have any comments on Schedule 10. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord can answer my points.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: We are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his attempt to shorten the proceedings and for clarifying the situation. Perhaps I may ask him or the Minister about two matters. One of the amendments relates to Schedule 10 paragraph 1(1) on page 107 at the bottom. It is Amendment No. 227C which says,
"leave out from ('undertaking') to end of line 47".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, wishes to leave out that, whatever happens before,

63
"shall not apply to any such rights or liabilities under a contract of employment".
It immediately comes to mind to consider what can come under contracts of employment. It is inevitable that it will be said that I should refer to intellectual property rights at this stage and whether it is intended that a contract of employment regarding an employee, referring to his rights as regards his inventions, is included in that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wishes to remove that from being transferred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord on my amendment. It was to clarify what was included here. It was not meant to be leaving out anything; it is a clarification amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord. My intervention is intended merely to clarify the position particularly as regards intellectual property rights. The next matter concerning the theme of mine is Amendment No. 227V which relates to page 110 dealing with,
"Right to production of documents of title".
According to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, at page 110, line 18, after the word "property" he wishes to insert "or any other asset". It seems to me that that phrase, if construed in the generalities of the Bill, might include certain intellectual property rights. By way of clarification I wonder whether the assets concerned should exclude intellectual property rights.
It may be helpful to the Minister to know that in the course of trying to understand what is being transferred under the previous clauses of this Bill, I have been under the impression that intellectual property rights have so far not come under consideration. It may be that the insertion of the words, "or any other asset", will bring us into the exotic area of intellectual property rights, which may be worth millions of pounds.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord and I did not soldier through the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act without appreciating together the importance, on which the noble Lord previously insisted during the passage of the Patents Act 1977, of the value of intellectual property. This point is new to me and I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to it. He is right in saying that intellectual property is not considered in the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, can help us on this matter, I am sure that we shall be very grateful.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should apologise for not telling the Minister in advance about the point I was going to raise. Therefore it may be more convenient for him if he writes to me later about the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In agreeing to group together these various amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will bear with me as I go through what I think to be the points of
64
most concern to him. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked whether in regard to Amendment No. 227C a contract of employment provision concerns intellectual property. An employee's intellectual property rights under his contract of employment will continue in force against his new employer. The only change in the terms of the contract of employment will be the name of the employer.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised several points. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I shall read Hansard and look through the noble Lord's questions. If I do not cover everything in my reply I shall certainly write to him.
Amendment No. 227F seek to leave out the words "may be appropriate" and insert,
"the Secretary of State may order".
Just as it is inappropriate for these items to be covered in the initial scheme, so it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have to make an order for every ancillary division of property rights and liabilities. He will have approved the allocation effected by the transfer schemes, and that will establish the main form and the great majority of the detail of the reorganisation of the industry, apart from the area boards. Minor adjustments thereafter will not affect the main shape of what the Secretary of State has approved and can be left to the industry.
In Amendments Nos. 227K, 227L and 227M the noble Lord asks that after "appears" there should be inserted the words, "to the Secretary of State". The amendment implies that it would be preferable for the Secretary of State rather than the industry itself to decide which party is in greater need of the security afforded by the land, or which party is likely to make the greater use of the land or to be more affected by the right or liability. I am afraid that I must disagree. The industry is by far the best placed to know in detail the extent to which a particular asset is required by one part of the industry as opposed to another. In most cases the technical nature of the operations will make such a decision clear-cut. It is therefore appropriate that, just as the industry will have the initial responsibility for making its transfer scheme, which is after all of far greater significance than any adjustments to Schedule 10, so it should decide the allocation and arrangements for dealing with the type of situation which I have described. Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 of the schedule nevertheless provides a safety mechanism whereby the Secretary of State shall determine a disputed matter if representations are made to him by one of the companies.
In Amendment No. 227P the noble Lord seeks to alter a definition from "transferee B" to "transferee B, C, D etc". I must tell the noble Lord that I found this amendment puzzling. Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 10 attaches the label "transferee A" to the transferee of the specified part of the transferor's undertaking and the label "transferee B" to each of the other transferees. These labels are then used in the rest of paragraph 2. The noble Lord's amendment would change the label for each of the other transferees to "transferee B, C, D etc". If this

65
amendment were made the subsequent references in paragraph 2 to transferee B would be meaningless.
Noble Lords may be concerned about the fact that the label "transferee B" is attached to more than one person. I can assure the Committee that this does not matter; wherever the label "transferee B" appears in paragraph 2 one simply translates it back to "each of the other transferees". This makes perfect sense and, if I may say so, I think that on this occasion the draftsman has indeed got it right.
Amendment No. 227R would remove references to representations. The noble Lord may consider that this improves the drafting by removing unnecessary words. While I have some sympathy with that intention, in the present case the existing drafting states the two possiblities with admirable clarity and with no possibility of misunderstanding. I shall look again at what the noble Lord has said in relation to that amendment and see whether I have given him as full an explanation as he is entitled to.
Amendment No. 227S deals with employees or their representatives. This is an important matter. I have to say that the amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. My first reason is founded in common sense. This provision of Schedule 10 refers to an employee—and certain others—applying to the Secretary of State. How is this to be done? It will be done almost certainly in writing. The Bill is silent on the point, but is it conceivable that an employee who was concerned about something as important as the identity of his future employer would make is application otherwise than in writing? And if we are considering applications in writing, is it to be suggested that the Secretary of State would be likely to reject an application because if came from a trade union, a firm of solicitors, or any other proxy, rather than from the individual employee himself?
Clearly, the Secretary of State would want to be reasonably satisfied that the application was genuine. Subject to that, I think he would be most ill-advised to deny an application merely because it came from somebody acting on behalf of the employee. It is common sense that this kind of thing is frequently handled by agents of some description on behalf of the principals.
My second reason is also grounded in common sense but with a touch of legal analysis added. This Bill contains numerous provisions about the things to be done by certain people in certain circumstances. For example, Clause 6(3) requires an applicant for a licence to publish his application. I have no doubt that the actions mentioned in these and many other provisions would be lawfully done if done by a representative of the person mentioned as well as if done by that person. But I would begin to doubt that proposition if the Committtee were to accept this amendment and add the reference to representatives to paragraph 3 of Schedule 10. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord that we take his amendment extremely seriously on that point. However, we feel that it is unnecessary.
Under Amendment No. 227U the noble Lord seeks to insert the words:
"The Secretary of State may request the transferor and the transferee to enter into an agreement under (2) above".
66
Under Clauses 63 and 64 the CEGB, the Electricity Council and the Scottish boards are required to make a scheme for the division of their undertakings between the successor companies. It is appropriate that it should be relevant parts of the industry which make the schemes, since they are best placed to know the nature of the assets and liabilities.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the side note for Clause 66. Schedule 10 is there, in other words, to permit fine tuning; to enable detail to be added where it is lacking; and to enable fine adjustments to be made. It is the industry bodies which have to implement the transfer schemes: that is why paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 provides the initiative to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, spoke to Amendment No. 227V, which reads:
"after ("property") insert ("or any other asset")".
We believe that this amendment is unnecessary. It might be of assistance to Members of the Committee if I were to explain briefly the purpose of paragraph 5. Its main use will arise in the case of unregistered land, where one set of title deeds covers property part of which is allocated to one transferee and part to another. Only one of the transferees can keep the title deeds, but if the other transferee wishes to sell part of the land allocated to him he will need to produce the title deeds to the purchaser. Paragraph 5, which adapts the law relating to ordinary conveyancing transactions, provides for that situation.
I turn now to the question of the word "asset" contained in Amendment No. 227V. Indeed, I believe this issue was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The inclusion of the word cannot be right because the paragraph is aimed at land and the expression, "any land or other property", provides a complete description of what is covered by the wording.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether we could leave out paragraph 6 at page 110—Amendment No. 227W. As I have already explained, Clause 65 provides that the scheme may define the property to be allocated to a particular company by referring to all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the transferor's undertaking. For example, the scheme may say that all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in the National Grid division will go to the National Grid company. If the National Grid company subsequently wanted to sell some land, it would need to be able to demonstrate to a purchaser that that land had indeed been transferred to it, since a purchaser would not know what had been comprised in the National Grid division. The key point here is that paragraph 6 provides a mechanism, through a system of certificates of title, for a transferee to be able to demonstrate to a purchaser that land has been transferred to him by the scheme.
As I say, I shall look carefully at Hansard to see what has been asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have tried to answer most of the points he made. The last point I should like to make concerns intellectual property rights generally. The existing

67
statutory bodies' intellectually property—that is, copyright, patents, know-how, trademarks, and so on—is part of the property, rights and liabilities of those bodies and will pass to the successor companies.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that comprehensive review of Schedule 10. Perhaps he would kindly write to me—and send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—indicating what happens to employees who have an interest in patents when these are vested in successor companies?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall be most happy to do so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I note that, as regards the question of contracts of employment and intellectual property rights, he has said that all that will happen is that there will be a new name in relation to the contract. I must enter a caveat at this stage: contracts relating to an employee involving intellectual property rights may also involve rights for exploitation of the invention involving the particular expertise of Mr. X or the firm X. Dealing with this issue is not a simple matter. However, I shall consider what the noble Lord says in his written reply to see whether something can be done in the future.
The sub-heading of Schedule 10 also worries me. It reads:
"Allocation of property, rights and liabilities: general".
One is left trying to construe what is meant by "property". If the noble Lord will consider saying that all the matters we are discussing today relate only to rights in land and property of that nature—for example, houses, factories and other such buildings—then the position would be clearer. However, if the word "property" is to include, in its generality, intellectual property rights some difficulties may arise. It is a matter for clarification. I must say that I am most grateful for the tolerance and courtesy which has been extended to me by the noble Lord at this late hour.
[Amendment No. 227C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 227O to 227X not moved.]
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Initial Government holding in the companies]:
[Amendment No. 227Y not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 50, line 20, at end insert ("and in any case shall in no event dispose of securities or any rights to securities initially allotted to him in pursuance of this section in relation to a company designated in section 63(1)(b) above").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 228 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 229, 230, 231 and 232. The purpose of these
68
amendments is to give the Government a choice as to how they handle the National Grid Company; they set out alternative ways of dealing with the company. Under one of the amendments they could retain the ownership for themselves, or, alternatively, as I should prefer, a new company could be set up which would be owned 20 per cent. by the Government 40 per cent. by the generating companies and 40 per cent. by the distributors—the successors of the area boards.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to promote competition. With that purpose in mind the legislation sets about the dismemberment of the CEGB monopoly. However, what is odd is that in attacking one monoply it should almost by accident strengthen another. I say that because, so far as concerns most customers, area boards or their successors will have a monopoly. Indeed, few of us will have a choice as to which area board we draw supplies from. Therefore, in the view of most people, each distributor will have a monopoly over a large number of its customers.
It seems to me that the effect of the Bill is to reinforce and strengthen the monopolies of the distributing companies. The arrangements made under the Bill are not all that easy to follow. As I understand it, the area boards will own the National Grid company through a holding company. They will have no part or voice in the operation of the National Grid. It will be operated by the same people who do the job now according to a merit order. The merit order will be based on the same principles as at present.
Ostensibly the privileges of owning the National Grid will be very limited indeed. We are informed by one of the available documents—I think it was the reply by the Government to the Select Committee—that the distributors will have the right to approve annually the medium term plan. I suppose that could be a useful exercise. However, it seems to me that it could easily be a very empty privilege if that were the end of the story.
I ask my noble friend what rights will the holding company have when it comes to the appointment of future chairmen and directors of the operating company of the National Grid? Further, what rights or powers will the holding company have over the research and development programme of the National Grid and what powers will it have over the prices to be charged by the National Grid company for its transmission services? Finally, what voice, if any, will it have in capital investments?
To those questions I add another: if the distributors, through the holding company which they own, have no control over the appointments, research and development, or prices and capital investment, then who will have such control? Surely it is unthinkable that a powerful instrument like the National Grid should be left in isolation, answerable to no one.
If the distributors have the powers which I suspect will go to them—almost by force of gravity because there is nowhere else for them to go—then they will enjoy a strong position. Their already powerful position vis-à-vis their customers will be considerably

69
strengthened. I suspect that before very long they will find themselves not only the owners but the controllers of the National Grid. To that must be added the fact that they are already the owners of the lower voltage network.
If the distributors do not have the powers which I have suggested will become theirs almost in the course of nature, the National Grid company will be in a strong position as a really powerful, independent middle man, answerable to no one. In effect it will dictate to the industry. Not only will the National Grid have its present powers and not only will it continue to control the grid, but it will also act, so we are told, as a clearing house for contracts and payments. All contracts made between the generators and the distributors will have to be deposited for clearance with the National Grid. The National Grid will be the only body which will know who has consumed what quantities of energy and it will presumably send in the bills. So the National Grid company will be sitting in the middle.
I wish to know who will be in effective control of it. It would be objectionable if the distributors came to be in control of the company and it would be equally a matter of objection if it were left out on a limb on its own, to do whatever it wished.
There is another point. I mentioned that the National Grid company would have the role of a clearing house. I have been unable to put my hands on any document which explains what will be a complicated system of contracts and payments. I have been told—rumour has reached me—that one is in preparation within the industry. I very much wish to inquire of my noble friend how long she anticipates the period of gestation will be. When can we expect to see a clear summary of how the system of contracts, payments and regulations will work together? Certainly I hope that it will be before the Report stage. I do not believe that such a document is currently available.
I repeat, the likely consequences of the Bill will be either to enhance unacceptably the monopolies of the distributing company—I hope that I shall not be told that there is no question of any distributing company having a monopoly; of course they have—or that the National Grid will find itself in the position of a powerful middle man, answerable to none. If I judge that my noble friend's answer is somewhere in between, that answer will taste of fudge and is one which I should find very difficult to accept. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Peston: These are very technical matters. They are also quite fundamental to the electricity industry and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for raising them. Needless to say, I do not entirely agree with everything the noble Lord has said on this matter, in particular when he considers—as he did at the outset—the alternative possibilities for the National Grid. The one possibility of retaining the ownership of the National Grid company in the public sector seems to me obviously to be the right thing to do; just as to the noble Lord it is obviously not the right thing to do.
70
However, in a spirit of a degree of compromise, let me add that, in arguing that this is a public sector matter, I wish to argue that control of the company should be a public sector matter. In many ways I do not care how much of the private operation is owned, as long as the grid is run essentially in the public interest. That takes us to the whole point of the merit order and similar matters.
Noble Lords opposite have been obliged somewhat to denigrate the publicly owned electricity industry of the country in order to justify privatising it. But one of its great triumphs has been all the work it has done on merit order; it has been quite superlative work in terms of modern techniques of control. It is work that, to my knowledge, is envied by most of the other generating and transmission systems throughout the rest of the world. Over the approximately 20 years during which we have developed our grid system those who have worked in the industry have made major contributions to operating economics. Apropos of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on an earlier amendment, it seems to me that there is a great deal of intellectual property involved here and one wonders to some extent who might now be deemed to be its owner.
The merit order problem consists of two kinds of things. Given the existing capacity of the system, the merit order is simply a way of deciding which power stations will be operated. In its simplest terms, the system which will be operated most efficiently is where stations which have low marginal costs are used ahead of those which have high marginal costs. It is a very simple principle: one's place in the merit order is essentially measured by one's marginal costs. There are obvious exceptions to that as for various reasons occasionally some stations have to be taken out of use: refurbishment, repair and maintenance.
Leaving that on one side, the obvious example is nuclear power which has very low marginal operating costs; it will be used on base load almost all the time. Other kinds of stations which have high marginal costs but lower capital costs will be used occasionally to meet peak demands and so forth. So the principle of merit order is very straightforward, given existing capacity.
The matter becomes complicated when one tries to take an investment decision. The difficulty is, that, given any station one may build, one does not know what will happen unless one can predict where it will appear in the merit order. The great technical problem is that one cannot predict entirely where it will appear in the merit order because that itself will depend on which other stations will be built in due course. Certainly in my younger days when I grappled with these problems there was nothing more calculated to produce a headache than the question of whether one invested in a station which depended on its place in the merit order. That in turn depended on other investment decisions, which in turn then depended on whether the station was built in the first place and other considerations.
The great triumph of the industry is that it has developed computer models which enable it to examine and simulate these problems and to get very close to what one might call the overall optimisation

71
of the system, including the investment decision. I had hoped that any privatised industry would set up a grid company that would solve that problem. It seems to me that the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, puts before us is a question of whether in order to privatise the industry—that may have other benefits; I shall not go over the great debate about that again this evening—the Government are sacrificing the efficiency gains that we obtain from a properly operated merit order system. In asking that question, let me follow the lead given by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and in particular refer to investment decisions. The industry, as privatised, no longer undertakes the commitment that someone building a new power station undertakes on the basis of a view taken on its position in the merit order. The people who make a decision about the new power stations are not also running the grid system or the transmission system.
The other complication, as I understand the Bill, is that anyone can build a new power station, do a deal with the area boards and obtain some commitment to using that station's electricity, even though overall it may not correctly be used in a merit order, if we were able to get to grips with that merit order. Therefore, it seems to me that, whatever else the Bill does—I repeat that I do not wish to get involved in the reasons for privatisation—it places in peril the efficient decision-making process that already exists for investment.
I wish to say, following that, that within the merit order system as it currently operates, what is basic is that the system will operate according to marginal cost, and, as it were, price or returns to the individual stations is itself a residual. As I understand the Bill—as the Committee knows, I always take care to emphasise that I may not understand the Bill—merit order or transmission decisions from now on will not be taken on the basis of marginal cost but on the basis of price, as somehow already determined. I must say that intellectually I simply cannot see that as a possible solution. One cannot determine price unless one has in the first place determined efficiency. As regards economics, the idea that one can do that the other way round is simply wrong. However, on more than one occasion the Government have claimed that they can solve this problem.
That leads me to one of the central questions of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which is to ask how the grid will operate from now on. Are there any documents that the Government can show us which reveal how the grid will operate and also demonstrate that it operates optimally? I have waited until precisely this time to get involved in those matters. I had hoped that appropriate documentation would be forthcoming. Such documentation may exist. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has not seen it, and I can only say that I have not seen any documentation which suggests that the system can work efficiently in the sense in which it is working efficiently at this time.
To add research and development to all this, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does, complicates matters
72
further still, because essentially the returns to research and development all have to be traced through the merit order system and through the grid and other systems. Again it is not obvious who will carry out that analysis and who will take the relevant decisions. The Committee will be aware that to an economist like me this subject is one on which I could detain the Committee for hours and hours, as it absolutely fascinates me. However, I concede to the interest of the Chamber in other matters like agriculture, and I shall not pursue these matters further.
However, the fact that I do not pursue them does not mean that they are unimportant. It certainly does not mean that the Government have no obligation to answer the kind of questions which have been raised. This is not an issue where one can say that when privatisation has taken place and the system is operating everything will be all right. In this case I would argue that the Government have no grounds for believing that the system will work efficiently unless they have sorted some of these matters out beforehand or can direct our attention to work which has been done which shows that these matters have been sorted out.
Lord Trafford: I wish to ask the noble Lord one question. He said there was no other system upon which this matter could be operated except that of marginal cost, on which it has been operated. Will he explain to me why he thinks that it could not be operated on any other cost system? Part of the reason for the provision is the high basic cost of nuclear stations. Will the noble Lord explain to me why he makes that statement, when there are other cost bases on which to operate?
Lord Peston: The noble Lord puts me in some difficulty because I simply have to tell him that he is mistaken. There is no other correct way of solving a problem of this kind other than on the basis of marginal cost. One also has to consider the investment side, the capital costs and the relevant discount rate. In addition one has to make allowances for risk. However, I must tell the noble Lord that cost in this case means marginal cost. There is no other correct way of doing it.
However, if I may put the matter differently and slightly modify my remarks, I should say that either the whole of economics is wrong or marginal cost is the only correct way of dealing with this matter. The great error is to try to undertake this matter either on the basis of something called accounting cost, which would be wrong, or on the basis of price, which, I repeat, should follow from the correct analysis of cost and should not precede it. However, I am aware that the Committee is in no mood to discuss fundamental economics at this point. Therefore, I have to proceed with a series of statements rather than give a lecture on micro-economics.
Viscount Hood: I wish to support the amendment without necessarily supporting the solution to the amendment. This is a very obscure area. The Government must give us more information as to

73
how things will work. The essence of competition is to find new investors willing to build power stations. As far as I can judge, the only way they can do that under the formula which is being produced is if a large amount of the capital cost is paid for by the regional companies as some kind of fixed cost, leaving the payment for power as marginal cost, as the noble Lord opposite has just said. Will investors be prepared to act in this way? If they are not, the whole factor of competition, which is the basis of the Bill, falls apart. That is why we need and are entitled to a clearer, simple statement on this subject.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The amendments to this clause are quite important. That is why, in spite of the wishes of Members of the Committee to go to dinner or move on to the next business, we cannot afford not to discuss the amendments. There are several points in the speech of my noble friend Lord Peyton that I did not quite understand. One concerned who would follow the presently appointed board. Surely, once something is privatised, automatically it will be entirely within the power of the new privatised body to decide who follows afterwards. The shareholders will have the right to decide that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The point is that the operating company will be wholly owned by the holding company, which is owned by the distributors. It is not unnatural that the Minister has appointed the first chairman and the first board, but it would be very surprising if the holding company were not interested in influencing subsequent appointments when it has been set up.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Even in respect of the present appointment all the distribution companies were very keen that David Jefferies should be appointed. I think that he emerged as the natural candidate. As time progresses and when it is his turn to retire I believe that someone from the industry will emerge in the same way. The appointment requires not only a very good business sense; it also requires highly technical knowledge.
The National Grid company is very well set out in the Bill. It should be appreciated that it has an essential role and a pivotal position within the privatised electricity supply industry. It is important to have a formal guarantee of its independence and integrity. I believe that that is guaranteed by the way it is structured and the membership of its holding company. Those serving in the holding company will be barred from serving on the board of the National Grid company. That two-tier arrangement, whereby all the shareholders of the holding company will come from the supply side of the industry and will watch over policy decisions, will ensure that they have an interest in ensuring the continuity of supply at the cheapest price. However, they will not be in a position to interfere with the day-to-day management. That is surely where the decisions must be made.
The distribution companies' only opportunity to influence the National Grid company's activities will be as shareholders of the holding company. They
74
will be entitled to receive and approve annually the medium-term plan, as the noble Lord Lord Peston, mentioned including the projected capital expenditure and consequential borrowing requirements. The holding company can thus scrutinise individual items of expenditure proposed by the National Grid company but may not veto any item in the business plan which is required to enable the National Grid company to meet its obligations under the Electricity Act and the transmission licence.
The arrangement is intended to ensure sensible examination of the National Grid company's investment and borrowing proposals while preventing shareholders —the supply companies—from inhibiting the local or short-term ends necessary for investment in the transmission system. Those provisions are all incorporated in the draft memorandum and articles of association of the NGC and of the holding company. They guarantee its independence, irrespective of the identity of the shareholders or the size of their holdings.
I could not understand from the speech of my noble friend Lord Peyton why he considered that the position would be any different after privatisation in terms of planning for supply of power and having the right load available at the time of need. The same demands will be made by the users of electricity whenever and however the system is operated.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, ignored in his merit order was the one major factor in electricity transmission, namely demand. Demand varies tremendously according to the weather.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness ought at least to grant me the slight knowledge that the whole point of the merit order is that demand fluctuates. If demand did not fluctuate there would not be a merit order problem. She ought to realise that I am aware of that, if little else.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I accept that. I do not understand the noble Lord's jargon about "merit order". I am much more down to earth and appreciate that the weather is one of the biggest factors in determining electricity demand. Strangely enough, it becomes much more expensive when there is heavy weather involving a very high demand. Under the present conditions that immediately pushes up the cost of electricity considerably. If there is not enough usage it is uneconomic. To have medium usage is best, but if there is suddenly tremendously high demand it is necessary to bring in all those power stations which are uneconomic. In order to supply the peak demand one incurs high costs.
I believe that the National Grid company as presently structured and the board as proposed—I am not sure what stage that has reached—are very well informed about the electricity industry. They know all about how the system works. There will be the advantage that, instead of the supply companies dealing only with the CEGB and having very little control over costs—which is what I found difficult as a board member—there will be greater control

75
over costs. The new structure as presently proposed is a good one. For that reason I am not in favour of any of the amendments to Clause 67.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to be as clear and simple as my noble friend Lord Hood requested. The effect of the amendments would be to strike against a fundamental commitment of the Government's White Paper. It would be in total opposition to our proposals for restructuring the industry.
Under Part II of the Bill, the Committee will know that we propose that the transmission company will move to the private sector under the joint ownership of the public supply companies, the successors to the area boards. The transmission company's shares will be owned, through a holding company, by the supply companies. There will be no government shareholding other than the special share.
It is an essential plank of our proposals for fostering competition that future responsibilities for the generation and the transmission of electricity should be entirely separate, and that is why we intend that the transmission company should move to the private sector under the joint ownership of the supply companies, which, under our proposals, have the duty to supply. We believe that if the generators could influence the terms for access to the grid and the way the National Grid company directs power stations, it would or could keep out competitors. That is why we cannot accept the amendment to give the generators a stake in the grid.
One of our fundamental aims has been to allow the area supply companies to choose who generates their electricity and to place them in the position where they can shop around for their cheapest supplies. The supply companies will of course be given the obligation to supply after privatisation. It will be in their interests to seek the cheapest sources of supply and encourage competition among generators. That will mean that it will be in their interests to ensure that the grid is operated in an open and transparent manner, which will encourage new generators to come into the market. As part of this, and as the Committee will know, the transmission licence will include conditions which will require the National Grid company to offer use of system terms to anyone wishing to have electricity conveyed over the grid. For these reasons, we believe that the area supply companies should own the grid.
In reality, the National Grid company will operate in a similar way to the CEGB's National Grid control and transmission division at present—directing power stations so as to meet demand at lowest cost and ensuring that the power flows on the system and the quality of supply remain within technically acceptable limits. But through its central role in scheduling and directing the operation of generating capacity connected to the grid it will have an integral part to play in the development of effective competition in the privatised industry.
The framework in which the transmission company must operate is clear and unequivocal.
76
There are of course duties and responsibilities governing its business set down in the Bill and in the draft licence. Further, the articles of association of the operating and holding companies set out the relationships between the two companies. These are important documents. They strike a fine balance, the result of which is an arm's length relationship with the owners, the supply companies. The documents ensure that the operating company will have the necessary freedom to meet the terms of its licence. As a result, the supply companies will view their shareholding primarily as an investment, not as a measure of control. Most importantly, the articles are protected from change by the special shareholder. That is why a large government shareholding as envisaged in Amendment No. 232 is unnecessary.
Some specific questions were asked and I shall try to respond to them. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil questioned the holding company's control over the operating company. As I said, the realationship is clearly set out in the articles of association of the two companies. The holding company has no control over expenditure required to fulfil the terms of the operating licence. It has a right of veto over expenditure on permitted business as set out in the licence but which could threaten the financial viability of the operating company. Otherwise, the holding company must give approval to the other expenditure by the operating company.
The appointment of directors is again provided for in the articles of association. The holding company is of course empowered to appoint directors, although the provisions in the articles focus on the power to appoint non-executive directors, provided that they do not comprise a majority of the board. The directors of the holding company will also have the right to dismiss directors of the grid operating company who fail in their responsibilities, but they must ensure that any action that they take does not conflict with their own company's articles of association which, inter alia, require them not to take action that would prevent the grid operating company from fulfilling the terms of its licence.
On the question of research and development, which has again been raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton, it will be for the operating company to decide what level and type of R&D it carries on in pursuit of licensed activities. But, again, the holding company will be able to apply the test of financial viability over R&D expenditure not required by the transmission licence.
On the question of settlement for practical reasons, the National Grid company will be the only body able to verify the amounts of power delivered to the system by the individual power stations connected to the grid and the amounts taken by supply companies and others at bulk supply points. The National Grid company is therefore the obvious choice to act as a clearing house for payments to generators by supply companies, and the transmission licence facilitates that. As to the extent of its involvement in the contractual arrangements, the National Grid company will have to be consulted about every power supply contract involving a

77
station whose output could affect power flows on the transmission system. It will have to confirm whether or not the system will be able to accommodate changes in power flows resulting from connection of the new station and advise on what work would be needed by the grid company for it to do so. The National Grid company will have to approve the specification of plant connected to the grid and all such generators will have to adhere to the terms of a grid code setting down operation standards. The prices for transmission will be regulated by the director under the provisions of the transmission licence.
Those are the arrangements to ensure that our aspirations for the transmission company set out in the White Paper are fully met. In summary, the area supply companies will have the clearest and best motivation to ensure that the grid operates to encourage new entrants into the industry. But at the same time cast-iron safeguards are being set in place to ensure that the grid can conduct its business independently and in an even-handed fashion. Those arrangements are underpinned by a timeless special share. I ask the Committee to agree that there is no need for any residual government holding in the transmission company.
I hope that that reassures my noble friend and others who have expressed concern and I accordingly invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to my noble friend for the recitation that she has just given us which was of great interest, but of great complexity. I must tell the Committee—although it already knows—that I am pretty slow on the uptake. I am absolutely baffled by all this and am reminded of a former Minister of State at the Department of Energy, Lord Balogh, who is now, alas departed. When he was a university tutor, he was once approached by an economics student with a problem. They had an hour's discussion and, at the end, he asked the student whether he was any clearer in his mind. "No", said the student, "I'm just as confused as before, but at a higher intellectural level". I am afraid that that is how I feel.
I am sorry to press the point, but I should like to know, how shall we know if the thing goes wrong? In what sense is the whole show ultimately accountable to Parliament through the Government? Is the special shareholder in turn accountable to Parliament? How do we know? I do not expect to understand any more; it is beyond me. But how do we know whether it is working?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate, whether from a sedentary position or standing up. At the same time, I should like to say that the only gratification that I feel—there is only a small measure of it—is that the amendment should have called forth from my noble friend on the Front Bench quite such a wealth of information which was not previously available to me and which, like my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, I shall need time to digest and examine.
78
Perhaps I may make one comment in passing. Legislation on important matters by means of the articles of association of a company not yet in being is hardly satisfactory. I cannot believe that it is commendable or acceptable to the Committee. In withdrawing the amendment, I am conscious of the importance of the matters raised. I must tell my noble friend that I intend to return to them at Report stage because I cannot believe that we have heard the answer to the basic question that I raised; namely, after a period of years, where will the power to control that vital part of the industry lie. It will either be with the National Grid company, which will have outgrown its holding company parent, or it will be with the distributors, in which case they will have immensely enhanced the very powerful degree of monopoly that they now have. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: I think that this is an appropriate moment to break. I suggest that we do not return to this business until 8.30 p.m. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1989
7.28 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order in Council is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention by which Greece acceded to the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and to the 1971 protocol to that convention.
The Brussels Convention was drawn up between the six original member states of the European Community under Article 220 of the treaty, which provides that member states shall enter into negotiations with each other with a view to securing for the benefit of their nationals, inter alia, the simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts or tribunals. The convention established a scheme to determine the international jurisdiction of the courts of the member states, and to facilitate recognition and introduce an expeditious procedure for securing the enforcement of judgments within the Community.
The 1971 Protocol confers jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Community to interpret that convention.
On becoming a member of the Community each state undertakes to accede to the Brussels Convention and to the Protocol: this is

79
acknowledged in Article 63 of the Convention and in Article 9 of the Protocol respectively. The United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland acceded by a convention signed on the 9th October 1978, and the Brussels Convention is now in force in each of those States—in the United Kingdom since the 1st January 1987 by virtue of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. In turn, on joining the Community, Greece acceded by a convention signed on the 25th October 1982. The convention on the accession of Spain and Portugal, the two final states, was signed on 26th of last month.
Section 14 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act provides that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such modifications of the Act as Her Majesty considers appropriate in consequence of any revision to the Brussels Convention or to the Protocol. Such revisions include:
"in particular any revision connected with the accession to the 1968 Convention of one or more further states".
Although the draft order before your Lordships today runs to some 20 pages or more, it may be surprising to say that in essence it is very simple. It makes only those changes to the 1982 Act which are directly consequent upon Greek accession to the Brussels Convention: it makes no changes of substance.
Articles 3 to 6 effect the necessary amendments to the definitions contained in Section 1 of the Act to include the Greek accession convention, referred to as "the 1982 Accession Convention"; and to include Greece within the definition of a "contracting state".
Article 8 amends Section 3 of the Act to permit United Kingdom courts, in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of the Brussels Convention or the accession conventions, to consider the report on the Greek accession convention drawn up by two eminent Greek academic lawyers. I should say that Section 3 already permits reference to the corresponding reports on the Brussels Convention and on the earlier accession convention—that is, the 1978 convention under which the United Kingdom acceded, and this Greek report completes the picture. These reports are to be given by the courts:
"such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances".
The bulk of the order comprises the schedules and these are explained in Article 7. They replace Schedules 1 and 2 to the 1982 Act which contained, respectively, the text of the Brussels Convention and of the 1971 Protocol, each as amended by the 1978 accession convention. The new texts reflect the further amendments occasioned by Greek accession. It is most important that practitioners, academics and others should have set out in a convenient form, and in one place, the current texts.
Schedule 3 represents an additional schedule, Schedule 3A to the 1982 Act, setting out what I might call the operational elements of the Greek accession convention: the transitional provisions and the final provisions, the procedure for entry into force and so on.
The order is entirely technical in its scope, extending the territorial application of a most
80
valuable convention. The 12 states have also undertaken to ratify the Spanish and Portuguese accession convention before the end of 1992. Once that is done we shall have a common market in judgments throughout the Community. This order represents the penultimate stage in that long process and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved. [20th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie).
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for explaining this order. As he suggested, on the face of it the order looks pretty formidable. It runs to no fewer than 22 pages. That is explained by the convenience of putting together in one instrument a number of related conventions. To that I have no objection and practitioners and those who have to apply these measures will welcome it.
The convention was drawn up originally between the six member states of the European Community with a view to simplifying the formalities governing the recriprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts or tribunals as between parties to the convention. As the noble and learned Lord said, the effect of this order is merely to extend the territorial application of the Brussels Convention to Greece vis-à-vis the United Kingdom.
However, the House may like to know how often and how effectively the Brussels Convention has operated in practice. Has recourse been had to it from parties in the United Kingdom and, if so, how frequently? Perhaps I should have given notice that I proposed to ask these questions. However, I do not expect any detailed reply. In general, how effective has the machinery been?
Experience in the application of these conventions has shown that long delay often bedevils their application in practice and it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord were to give some indication of the experience of those who have sought to make use of this machinery in practice to secure enforcement of judgments in their favour. The system of enforcing judgments in this country is not too bad but there is always a struggle to keep it up to date and effective. It would be interesting for the House, and indeed perhaps important, to know how this convention is working out in practice and how effective is the avoidance of delay in this field.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we on these Benches also would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the draft order. In fact, as I understand it, it simply proposes an amendment to the 1982 Act, long awaited by those who want to pursue defaulting Greek debtors. I do not wish to trouble the noble and learned Lord to give us even edited highlights of the report of the Greek professors which is referred to in paragraph 8 of the order or even to pronounce the names of its authors. It is to be hoped that this will be a further aid to the interpretation of the statute in a rather remarkable if not unique form of drafting.
I want to make only two points about the working of the 1982 Act. First, it seemed to take a very long

81
time to come into operation. The main, underlying convention was signed in 1968. We passed our enactment in 1982. That did not come into force until 1987. Even if the noble and learned Lord is not able to answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I hope that the Government have in place some mechanism for monitoring the working and the weaknesses, if any, of the 1982 Act so that there can be a continuous consideration of how it works in practice.
Secondly, one can make the general point that the effectiveness of any such international provision depends on the width of its application and the reciprocity and uniformity of its application. I should hope that consideration would be given to the enlargement of the protective and provisional powers of the court by an order under Section 25(3) of the Act so that it is possible to have some form of protective relief not just where litigation is proposed in a contracting state but also where it is proposed or in fact taking place in a non-contracting state.
Subject to those points, this is obviously a welcome extension of the 1982 Act.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the welcome that he gave to this order and also to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for the approval that he has signified. I am particularly grateful to him for not requiring me to pronounce the names of the two Greek professors who now find themselves by name within our legislation.
As I indicated in opening, the Act has been in force in the United Kingdom only since 1st January 1987. I regret that I am not in a position to give either the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord who have participated in this brief debate any precise figures on the number of occasions on which the convention has been used. In a Scottish context, I am aware that it has been used only once in circumstances that were rather complicated, and which have not yet reached any law reports. It may well be that there are a significant number of comparable occasions.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I have no knowledge of any attempt to use this machinery in Wales.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, how much it is used, I do not know. Certainly, it is a complicated matter. Clearly we shall wish to see that these elaborate provisions that have been introduced are used effectively for those people who have cause from time to time to secure enforcement of their judgments within the European Community.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Set-Aside (Amendment) Regulations 1989
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft
82
regulations laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
A year ago the Government announced proposals for implementation of the set-aside scheme in the UK. This scheme was adopted by the Community in February 1988 in the context of agreement on agricultural stabilisers and forms an important element of the measures we are taking in the Community to bring over-production under control. The primary instrument of reform must remain price policy. But set-aside plays an important complementary role as an alternative for those farmers finding it harder to operate under a more rigorous price policy. It is also a direct incentive, together with other initiatives such as the farm diversification grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme, for farmers to give up surplus production in favour of other uses for their land.
The need to meet our Community obligations gave the Government very little time to implement the scheme last year. In fact the UK was the first member state to have a scheme in force, although the scheme is now up and running in all member states except two—Denmark, which hopes to implement shortly, and Portugal, which is not required to do so until 1995. In the UK around 1,800 farmers took up the scheme in the first year, setting aside about 150,000 acres of land. A further 24,000 took the opportunity to register their land, which will make it simpler for them to apply at a later stage if they wish to do so because base year information will have been registered with us. Considering the short time farmers had to make their decisions, this was a very encouraging initial response.
The draft instrument before the House tonight does not make any fundamental changes to the operation of the set-aside scheme. In particular the Government do not intend to make any changes to the rate of aid which last year's response has shown can be attractive to some arable farmers throughout the UK, including those in the main cereal production areas. We have never claimed that set-aside would or should be attractive to all farmers; but there are clearly circumstances where farmers find it a better deal than continued production of surpluses.
In the light of the first year's experience of the scheme and of further discussions with the EC Commission, it has been necessary to make some small changes to the original set-aside regulations, and this is what these amending regulations do.
Perhaps the most significant of these changes is Regulation 8 which extends the list of crops eligible for set-aside payments to include crops grown for stock feed and certified herbage seed. This has been required by the EC Commission to tie our rules in more closely with the EC legislation and means that, if a farmer grew these crops in the base year 1987–88, the area used for them is included in the set-aside calculation. This change will affect only new entrants to the scheme. Those already participating will not have to make any adjustments to their set-aside area, although they may, if they wish, apply to increase it.
Regulation 3 provides some minor points of clarification on the interpretation of the definition of arable land and a definition of "grazing land" to place beyond doubt the position on grazing by horses which counts, and has always counted, as a non-agricultural use under the scheme.
Regulation 4 makes a small change to ensure that arable land can be set aside even though it may have been rotated into use as temporary grassland at the time of application for set-aside. This change is necessary to ensure that farmers who may, for example, have registered for the scheme and subsequently used part of their arable land for temporary grass as part of an arable rotation will not be limited in their choice of land to set-aside when they come to join the scheme.
Regulation 4 also includes a technical clarification to make it clearer that the set-aside area cannot exceed the area used for relevant arable crops in the base year.
Other changes are generally consequential upon these, except for one further amendment, to which I should draw particular attention. Following representations from environmental and farming organisations, we have agreed that there could be both environmental and agronomic benefits from encouraging the use of set-aside land as sacrificial feeding areas for over-wintering geese such as Brent geese. However, in many cases the use of fertilisers is necessary to create a suitably lush grass sward to attract the geese away from growing crops. Regulation 9 therefore provides that special authorisation may be given to apply inorganic fertilisers to set-aside land in certain areas where the land is to be managed as a feeding ground for migratory geese. This special provision will be available only in those limited areas which are known to suffer from damage from goose grazing and the general prohibition on the use of fertilisers on set-aside land remains unchanged.
Finally, for completeness, I should perhaps remind noble Lords of a further addition to the set-aside scheme arrangements which is not in these regulations. As was announced recently by the Government, the Countryside Commission is developing a scheme of additional incentives to farmers who undertake to manage set-aside land in ways which benefit the environment or improve provisions for quiet recreation in the countryside. The scheme is called the conservation premium scheme for set-aside land (colloquially known as environmental top-up). It is to be administered by the Countryside Commission in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy Council. Details of the scheme were announced by the chairman of the Countryside Commission earlier today. Initially the scheme will apply in the eastern counties of England, where the initial uptake of set-aside has been good and there are plenty of opportunities for environmental impovement. Farmers in that area will be able to select from a range of management prescriptions of benefit to landscape, wildlife or informal recreation activities, for which they will be eligible for payments of between £45 and £120 per hectare. This is an important new initiative and I
84
hope that those farmers who are eligible for the scheme will think carefully about applying for conservation premium payments.
The set-aside scheme is still at an early stage of its life. It has made a promising start and a number of farmers have already made the scheme work for them in a variety of ways. However, we need more experience before reaching conclusions on the scheme, and the coming year will be a particularly important one in assessing its worth. The scheme is now open for applications for 1989–90 and the closing date for this year is 31st July, giving farmers plenty of time to work out their plans before the new crop year. The amendments in these regulations, though small, will help us to offer a greater degree of flexibility to participants and to manage the scheme effectively in accordance with our Community obligations. I commend these regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining as clearly as she has the implication behind the statutory instrument we are asked to approve this evening. It follows very much the assessment which I made of the document myself based on an expert view of the subject. I am glad to have had her official confirmation of that view.
We take the view on this side that by and large, although the noble Baroness has tended to suggest that the changes are not in total tremendously significant, nevertheless they represented easements which will be attractive to people who are interested in set-aside, and in particular to the 24,000 farmers to whom she referred who registered their 1987–88 cropping patterns with agricultural departments to make it simpler for them to apply for the scheme, either this year or in future years. Has the department any assessment, even a rough one, of the likely response by those 24,000 farmers and of the implications of that for the basic objective of the set-aside scheme? That is, of course, to reinforce the other measures taken by the agricultural Ministers to avoid over production and to avoid the triggering of penalties under maximum guaranteed quantities for cereals. Is it likely, for example, that we shall see from among these 24,000 registrations a considerable increase over the 1,800 farmers who at present are benefiting from the set-aside scheme?
We were particularly interested also in the additional information about the countryside premium for set-aside which, as she said, has been announced today by the chairman of the Countryside Commission. We were interested to note from a Written Answer in another place on 15th June at col. 500 that the agricultural department spokesman there in referring to the top-up scheme said that it is to be administered by the Countryside Commission with advice and assistance from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Department of the Environment and his department. He also confirmed what the noble Baroness has told us that the scheme is to apply in the main to the eastern counties of

85
England and payments of £45 to £120 per hectare are offered under the top-up scheme.
What is puzzling us about the scheme is not the principle underlying it, which is clear enough, but the large number of bodies involved in administering it. Normally the Countryside Commission is the administrative body, but the two departments of state and the Nature Conservancy Council are also involved. Is there any particular reason why the Countryside Commission has been chosen as, in effect, the lead administrative body in this important area? Does the fact that the chairman of that body announced the scheme today (as forecast in the parliamentary Answer to which I referred) mean that the jurisdiction of Parliament is in any way diminished because of the inaccessibility of the chairman of the Countryside Commission to parliamentary question and answer? If that were to happen, then even at this early stage in the history of set-aside we should regard it as a retrograde step, much as we admire the work of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Is there any particular reason for this, and, if so, what is that reason?
I was reassured by what the Minister said about the part of the order which is to apply to organic farming by way of providing a carpet for Brent geese to graze upon. One has the feeling that if there is anything in the theory of reincarnation, those of us who have a choice in the matter ought in our reincarnated state perhaps opt to be mallard ducks because the life of that bird seems to be a great deal more pleasant both potentially and immediately than that of a Member of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, we approve of what is in train and I hope that the conservationists, particularly those who concern themselves in this the centenary year of the RSPB, will have taken note of this important effort in the set-aside scheme to make a point which I am sure is near and dear to their hearts. We are in general support of the order and as I have said we thank the Minister for the manner in which she introduced it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House, but I have just a couple of questions to the Minister which I hope she will be able to help us with. In relation to the environmental top-up scheme, do we yet know the Government's proposals for the extensification scheme which has to be introduced by 1990 under the European directive? Is the top-up scheme part of this, or are we to hear about the wider scheme in the near future?
I understand that various activities are allowed on set-aside land which are subject to planning permission: such things as caravans, restaurants, or leisure facilities. Does the Minister yet have any idea how many planning applications have been submitted for development of set-aside land? If the Minister does not have the answer perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me.
I am pleased about the geese. But there is a farming problem here. Let us suppose that a farmer applies the fertiliser, gets his lush grass and the geese do not arrive. What is he supposed to do with that grass?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the last question first. According to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, he should pray for mallard.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher, and Lord Carter, for their welcome. The noble Lords asked various questions. On the countryside premium scheme I have been asked why the Countryside Commission was chosen. It was chosen because it is the best body to take responsibility for the running of the scheme assisted by the NCC. It reflects the agency's responsibility for and expertise in matters related to wildlife conservation, landscape and recreation in the countryside. In relation to the parliamentary aspect, the Department of the Environment Ministers answer to Parliament on behalf of the Countryside Commission. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
It is too early to say for this year what the assessment of response will be, but we expect another good response. There may be an increase, but we shall have to wait to see. Each hectare taken out of production makes a contribution to reducing surpluses.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about extensification. We have issued today a consultation document on extensification and there is a copy in the Library. I do not rule out changes in the scheme, if they seem to be necessary in the future and if they are consistent with Community rules. However, for the moment, the Government's approach is to let the scheme run and to avoid moving the goalposts before the players have learnt the rules of the game. I commend these rules to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8.30 p.m.]

Electricity Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 67.
[Amendment No. 228A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 228AA not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 228B:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
("The "special share".
.—(1) In addition to securites issued under section 67 above, each successor company nominated for the purposes of section 62(1), 63(1) or (2) or 64(1) above shall issue one share to be known as the special share. The special share may only be issued to, held by and transferred to a special shareholder who shall be one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, another Minister of the Crown, the Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown.
(2) The rights and powers attached to the special share shall be as set out in the articles of association of a successor company and, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in those articles, any variation of those rights and powers shall be

87
effective only with the consent in writing of the shareholder and without such consent shall not be done or caused to be done.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act the special shareholder may, after consulting a company, by order require the company to redeem the special share at par at any time by giving notice to the company and delivering to it the relevant share certificate.
(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) in this section—
"successor company" has the meaning given by section 67(1) above "special share" and "special shareholder" have the meaning given in subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify precisely how all kinds of companies can be bought and sold and the role that the Government should play in that. We are beginning to have an understanding of the industry as it will look on day 1 of privatisation. There are certain areas which need clarification and little by little we are obtaining that. However, the controls which may remain as the industry develops are unclear.
Assuming that the drafting is correct, our amendment relates to all forms of privatised companies which will exist; namely, generating, transmission and supply companies. It also relates to what will happen thereafter and whether the Government believe that there is any need for the public interest to be exercised in terms of subsequent ownership of those companies and so forth.
The amendment has not been tabled in this precise way for detailed scrutiny as regards parliamentary drafting. It has been tabled with a view to reading the Government's mind. In other words, we can agree to disagree on the subject of privatisation per se—and I do not wish to cover that ground again. However, when discussing earlier amendments, particularly that dealt with immediately before the break, it became apparent that there is concern about the way in which the system will emerge. I am concerned to clarify the way in which the system will emerge in terms of ownership; but that is not irrelevant to the way in which it will emerge in terms of control.
The case for a special share is that it gives the Government a degree of control and some locus for intervention. Whether or not the amendment is correctly drafted, it is intended to allow the Government to limit others who might buy any of the companies that we are discussing. That is the reason for tabling the amendment and we are hoping for clarification. We are not asking the Government to engage in a ludicrous forecast of where we shall be in 25 years' time. We are rather concerned with principles. I assume that the Government and their advisers have thought about these matters and we should like to know a little about that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, invited me to comment on our intentions in relation to the special shares and I shall endeavour to oblige. I begin by making a couple of general comments about the special shares and the mechanics of their operation.
88
Special shares in privatised companies are shares having special rights which are retained by the Government. Their purpose and effect is to restrict certain specified matters from occurring without the Government's consent and/or to confer upon the Government certain other rights. Generally speaking, the desirability of that is in line with earlier discussions.
A single share is created in the privatised company and has attached to it special rights. It is normally held by the sponsoring Secretary of State or the Treasury Solicitor (as nominee of either a Minister or the Treasury). The articles of association of the company state that certain specified matters are deemed to constitute a variation of the rights attached to the special share. Under the Companies Act 1985 rights attached to a particular class of share cannot be varied unless (inter alia) the holders of 75 per cent. of the shares of that class consent to the variation. Since the special share constitutes a class of share on its own its rights cannot be varied without the Government's consent. In this way the Government's power to prevent certain specified matters from occurring is effectively entrenched.
The Government have made clear that they intend to take a special share in all those successor companies which are to be floated. In addition, the pivotal importance of the National Grid in the new industry structure makes it appropriate that the Secretary of State should retain a special share in the National Grid companies. These special shares would protect a provision in the articles of association of the relevant companies aimed at preventing a person or group of persons acting in concert from acquiring 15 per cent. or more of the company's voting share capital.
We are introducing increased competition into electricity supply. It is not the Government's intention that all successor companies should be protected from all market pressures for all time. For example, in the case of each successor to the area boards, we have decided that the involvement of the Government as special shareholder should fall away after five years. In the following five years, it would be for ordinary shareholders to decide whether the company's articles of association should be amended to permit a takeover. At the end of that period we believe that the special limitations on ownership of shares should fall away. The Government do, of course, have other powers to regulate takeovers, principally under the Fair Trading Act 1973.
With the two generating companies to be formed out of the CEGB and the two Scottish electricity companies, the position is slightly different. Each of these companies will control a substantial proportion of generating capacity in Great Britain. Three out of four of these companies will exercise control over nuclear generating assets. We do not believe that the special shares in these companies, nor indeed those for the grid companies which I described earlier, should be time limited.
I hope that Members of the Committee will gain some reassurances from this statement of our broad policy intentions. I shall now turn to the specific amendment and explain why we do not consider

89
that the new clause is desirable. I make no comment on the drafting.
The first reason is that the proposed amendment is in the view of the Government too blanket in nature in that it would require special shares in all successor companies. This is unnecessary. For example, we are not planning for special shares in relation to the successors to the Electricity Council, as described in Clause 63(2). These will be private companies wholly owned by those companies which we propose to float after the enactment of the Bill. As I have already confirmed, we do not intend for there to be special shares in all those successors which are to be floated so there would be incompatability there.
Secondly, and this relates to my statement that the Government intend that the special share for the supply companies should be redeemed after five years, the amendment could prevent this from happening unless the Government return to Parliament for approval. This would not appear the most sensible use of parliamentary time when it is fully aware of our intention.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. I hope that she will bear with me a little longer if I ask her for clarification on one or two specific points so that we can understand this. Perhaps I may start with the most obvious point. Let us assume that after a while, as a result of the buying and selling of shares, someone or some company owns two or three, and possibly even adjacent, suppliers or area boards. That would certainly raise very serious competition issues. Do I understand from the noble Baroness that the Government do not deem it appropriate that special shares should have been in existence to prevent that happening and that the Government would instead rely on the Fair Trading Act as a way of dealing with such an obvious move in the direction of monopoly and away from competition? That is one question on which I should welcome clarification from the noble Baroness, although she has probably answered that to some extent when she mentioned the Fair Trading Act.
The other question concerns generation, not least nuclear generation; namely, whether in this way or any other way the Government are retaining any powers to prevent foreign ownership of our generating capacity. Do they believe that that is a relevant matter? If it is relevant but is not to be dealt with by special shares in any form, what other way do we have of dealing with the matter?
I should like to know the Government's thinking on those matters. That sort of consideration was the purpose of my amendment, so perhaps the noble Baroness will just take another moment or two to throw some light on that.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that I can cope with the noble Lord's two questions. He is quite right. As regards the public electricity supply companies, as I said, the special share will go after the first five years and then there will be the 75 per cent. requirement for a resolution covering the next five years. That is
90
to protect them during the transitional period when one appreciates that there are many complexities with which the new companies will have to deal. Thereafter, they will be subject to the Fair Trading Act for a Monopolies and Mergers Commission reference in the normal way.
On the foreign ownership of shares in generating companies, of course to have any restriction would be inconsistent with the Treaty of Rome but, as I said, the shares in the generating companies are timeless shares for the more strategic reasons involved in the activities of those companies. They are timeless but not everlasting. Timeless shares are in order to protect the strategic situation.
Lord Peston: At this time of night I certainly shall not fall into the trap of discussing the philosophy of timeless versus everlasting. I thank the noble Baroness for her excellent and interesting answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Government investment in securities of the companies]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 228C:
Page 50, line 26, after ("time") insert ("and subject to the provisions of the Take-over Code").
The noble Lord said: Again this amendment seeks clarification. I simply wish to ask a straighforward question of the noble Baroness. Either the Treasury or the Secretary of State can acquire shares in a successor company. Under the Takeover Panel, if anybody takes shares in any company up to, I believe, 29·5 per cent. or this side of 30 per cent., they are then obliged to make a bid for the whole company.
I cannot believe that, if the Treasury were to stumble on acquiring some shares which happened to drift up to the level which brings the Takeover Panel into play, it would have in mind taking over the company. That is not the way that the Treasury behaves. If it wants to take over a company, it simply nationalises it. However, on reading the Bill, these companies and any dealings in their shares must be dealt with in the correct way, which includes taking some cognisance of the existence of the Takeover Panel and its code. Therefore, we have tabled this amendment to ask whether the Government have considered that aspect and, if so, what is the answer.
Baroness Hooper: The City code on takeovers and mergers regulates the acquisition of shares to avoid a person or group of persons acting in concert from obtaining creeping control of a public company. It requires that when a person or group acquires more than a fixed percentage of a company's voting shares or rights, an offer must be made for the remaining voting shares.
In practice, however, this will have little relevance to any government holdings in successor companies in the electricity industry. This is because Clause 70 ensures that the proportion of issued voting rights held by the Treasury or the Secretary of State does

91
not exceed a specified limit (known as the target investment limit) of not more than 0·5 per cent higher than the Government's holding of voting rights remaining after flotation. This limit cannot be increased. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any situation in which this basic provision of the code could apply.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the Government have considered that situation and have made the necessary safeguards.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. I partly had in mind—and this appears in Clause 70—that it is recognised that the Treasury could end up beyond the target by sheer chance and I shall come on to that in a moment. However, from what the noble Baroness said, I take it that the Treasury would not feel obliged in those circumstances to make a bid for the company because it never intended that to happen and that therefore in the ordinary sense the takeover code would not apply. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Exercise of functions through nominees]:
[Amendments Nos. 228D and 228E not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding]:
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 231A:
Page 51, line 23, leave out ("0·5") insert ("50").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 231B and 231C. Amendment No. 231A is tabled for the purpose of clarification. There are many aspects of the target investment limit that are worth exploring, but I am not sure that this is the time to do that. I assume that, in setting these target limits, the Government have in mind not providing the machinery—since the noble Baroness referred to creeping takeovers—for creeping nationalisation. If we did not have this clause, the Treasury could rapidily find itself again the owner of one or more of these companies, with no trouble whatsoever, without primary legislation. I assume that that is the purpose of the target investment limit.
I should like to know whether there is any specific meaning attaching to the 0·5 per cent. Is it the equivalent of a very small number or is there a subtle aspect of 0·5 per cent. that has eluded me? I assume that it means that it must not exceed by a very small amount the ordinary voting rights and so on. I should like to know where the number comes from. Does it have any magic significance or am I right in assuming that it does not have such significance?
Baroness Hooper: Since these amendments would enable a future government to regain a controlling
92
interest in a successor company through the acquisition of shares, it is hardly surprising that we find it unacceptable.
Clause 70 is a well precedented measure which is designed to ensure that a future government cannot seek to renationalise a successor company, once it has been sold, simply by buying shares in the market. The clause as drafted ensures that ownership could only be regained after the passing of further primary legislation. That should please your Lordships because it will involve a parliamentary procedure.
This Government firmly believe that this is the right way forward and that the Committee should reject proposals which could permit any government renationalisation through share acquisition in the market, as would be possible if these amendments were accepted.
Our provision is based on experience. Therefore the setting of the level at 0.5 per cent. above the percentage level of the voting rights carried by the Government's shareholding is a new provision. We are building on the experience of previous share sales. In major sales with large numbers of applicants it has proved very difficult to determine exactly how many shares are owned by the Secretary of State when the order setting the first level is made, because of unresolved queries on the share register in the first six months after the flotation. This provision will give the Secretary of State a margin of 0·5 per cent. to cover any uncertainties on the register.
The target investment limit may be reduced, but not increased, by further orders and no orders may be revoked except by an order fixing a new reduced limit. I hope that that helps to resolve the noble Lord's query.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies or decides to withdraw the amendment, I wonder if I may now at last do something that I have been longing to do ever since we embarked on the discussion of Part II; that is, to express wonder and surprise that the Secretary of State, who is after all a Cabinet Minister responsible to Parliament, is made to share his responsibility and to get the consent of the Treasury in every step that he takes throughout Part II. It really is extraordinary. I think that the most remarkable example is in Clause 67(2), which states:
"The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under subsection (1) above in relation to a successor company at a time when the company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown".
In subsection (5) we find that he is not allowed to,
"exercise any power conferred on him by this section, or dispose of any securities issued or of any rights to securities initially allotted to him in pursuance of this section, without the consent of the Treasury."
In Clause 70 we find that if anything is done as a result of anything done under subsection (6)—which I need not read out because it is there for all to see—
"it shall be the duty of the Treasury or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State to comply with subsection (5) above as soon after that time as is reasonably practicable".
Subsection (5) refers to something being the duty already of the Treasury and the Secretary of State. I really do think that one must draw attention to the fact that, apart from the inherent complexity of

93
the subject matter of these clauses—an inherent complexity which in my opinion cannot be avoided—it is regrettable that the drafting and the administration of it is to be confused by the fact that the Secretary of State is not allowed to act on his own initiative and on his own responsibility; at every turn he has to obtain the consent of the Treasury. I think that in Part II there are over 20 references to obtaining the consent of the Treasury. This is a matter that some of us have often referred to in another context. Here there is a slightly greater justification for intervention by the Treasury, but not to the extent indicated.
We have to bear in mind, quite rightly, that the Treasury is to be enabled to buy shares or obtain shares at the original issue, but I should have thought that we could perfectly well have legislated to that last-mentioned effect without having to have the Treasury intervening in every decision throughout the application of Part II of the Bill.
I cannot expect my noble friend on the Front Bench without notice—and I have have not given her notice—to reply to what I am saying. All that I wish to do at this stage is to point out the extra complication, the unnecessary involvement, of getting the consent of the Treasury at every turn, and also point out the really rather extraordinary way in which at times the Treasury is asked to give its own consent to what it has already done.
9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I was interested to hear the last point made forcefully and lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, regarding the approval which on almost every occasion would need to be sought by the Secretary of State from the Treasury to allow financial dealings of this kind to take place. In some respects I find that a little strange. Historically and at present—I am not criticising any particular colour of government—where sums of money are involved it has almost become copper bottomed that, where public money is involved, to a certain degree dealings do not take place without the consent of the Treasury. We are told that unless events take place outside the public sector borrowing requirement, they can trigger all kinds of reactions. I shall be less than surprised if that is what happens. In addition, Secretaries of State change. It may be that the large displays of political hiccups that took place on Thursday of last week will result in changes in Secretaries of State. It may well be that the Secretary of State who started this controversial Bill on its passage in another place may not be the Secretary of Slate by the time the Bill returns there.
It is wrong to assume that all Secretaries of State, irrespective of their political colour, behave with foreseeable consistency. They do not. On that basis I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is dealing with a situation that he knows has happened far too often in the past. I cannot foresee a similar state of affairs as regards this Bill where the procedure will be any different. In speaking to this amendment the noble Baroness, in her usual charming and lucid way, explained to the Committee what might happen as regards this amendment. She said that primary legislation will be required to alter what is in the Bill. One naturally accepts that. The political arena
94
is always filled with uncertainties. What was a certainty a few months ago and whatever the Government did which was irreversible in the very near future may be questioned. I am speaking only as an individual member of my own party. It may be that if there is a change of government these particular arrangements would be quickly called into question.
As regards priorities for time in which to bring in primary legislation to alter this Bill, so that we do not live all the time in Cloud-cuckoo-land, it may well be decided that the Bill needs altering. It is as well that we have had this debate on these amendments to put the situation in its right perspective. My noble friend Lord Peston, in speaking about this amendment earlier, asked the Minister what the clause meant as it stood and what the amendment was trying to do. I believe that the Minister gave a quite clear exposition. Anyone who believes that legislation which is going through now is guaranteed for all time in my opinion is whistling in Cloud-cuckoo-land. There are some things that a future Labour Government may have to revise and reverse as quickly as possible.
Somebody should make that caveat here and now. I believe it is a distinct possibility that has been brought nearer by what happened last Thursday. Anyone who totally disregards what happened then is very naive indeed.
Baroness Hooper: If a future government wish to change the proposals contained in this Bill in whatever form it is eventually passed, they can do so by introducing primary legislation. I fully recognise the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. One of the major purposes of this Bill is to reduce government influence on the electricity industry. Therefore we believe it is right that this clause should restrict future government investment in the successor companies.
Turning to the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, if I do not fully answer his question I shall certainly undertake to write to him. I understand that the involvement of the Treasury in the way proposed is quite normal practice. It allows a sensible and practical flexibility. For example in the event of a partial sale the balance of the shares would probably be passed to the Treasury, as was the case with British Telecom. So it is right that the Treasury is involved in the exercise of these powers. Perhaps I may add that there is a saying that behind every good man is a good woman and behind every Government Minister is the Treasury.
Lord Peston: I believe it is very unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to raise this extremely fascinating subject of Treasury control. Much as I would wish to occupy a good deal of the remaining part of this evening dealing with that subject, I shall refrain from doing so. That is not because I am not interested or that I feel what he said is unimportant. It is simply because it will take so long.
Looking at the Bill the matter is worse than he said. The Bill is not simply in terms of "the Secretary of State with permission of the Treasury". There is a good deal of "the Treasury will" or, if he is lucky,

95
"the Secretary of State with the permission of the Treasury". Often the Treasury position takes pride of place. One can argue backwards and forwards on that subject, but I shall refrain. I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification. When the time comes for us to argue that there is a greater case for public involvement in this industry that may require the purchase of shares, I agree that that should be done explicitly using primary legislation rather than by stealth.
My only parting shot on this point is that it is a curiosity of the history of our country that quite a few of the industries that ended up in public ownership did so not through ideology—the famous 1945 Labour Government cases—but through sheer chance. The Government of the day had to step in either to save the industry or something happened during the war to make intervention necessary.
I used to lecture my students on precisely this point. I said that much of what was called socialism arose because a government—often not a Labour Government—had to do something to solve a crisis. I am not clear that Clause 7 as it stands would prevent a government doing that. If a supply company found itself in great financial difficulties I hope that there would be a way in which the Government could step in, at least temporarily, in order to save it. My main purpose in moving the amendment was to get the Government's answer for clarification. Having got that most admirably, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 231B and 231C not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Statutory reserves]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZA:
Page 52, line 21, at end insert ("calculated by reference to generally accepted accounting principles").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 232ZB and 232ZC. They do not entirely deal with the same question but I shall cover all three questions in my introduction. In Clause 71 we come to an important part of the account procedures which will set up the new successor companies. Under the guise of "statutory reserves", which is the rubric to the clause, there is concealed all the accounting principles which will go to make up the capital of these companies.
Amendment No. 232ZA is designed to make sure that the accumulated realised profits of the transferor should be calculated by reference to what are now known—after the passage through this Chamber of the Companies Bill but not previously—as generally accepted accounting principles. Had I had the option I would have said "according to accounting standards set up by the Accounting Standards Committee of the ICA". However, as the Committee will be aware, the
96
Dearing Committee has reported on accounting standards, and in another place at this very moment amendments have been tabled by the Government to the Companies Bill which ensure that accounting standards, as we used to know them, have some statutory backing. It is unclear from the amendments that have been tabled because they have not been fully debated in another place.
It is extremely important that the reserves—the surplus over share capital—of the successor companies should be calculated by the accounting standards which are normally in use in the private sector. They should not only be calculated in that manner but they should be consistent as between one successor company and another. The accounting standards that we have at the moment are not wholly consistent on some points of depreciation, current cost accounting and other matters. These can be debated at length if Members of the Committee so desire. What is crucial is that the finances of the successor companies should be established on the same basis between one successor company and another and that they should be established on the same basis as other private sector companies.
On the Bill as drafted it is far from clear that that is the case at the moment. The CEGB and the area boards do not use in their accounting practices the accounting standards set up by the accounting standards committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Variations have been introduced because these are at the moment public corporations. When they become plcs they should be required to use whatever generally accepted accounting principles are in force. Clearly they would probably do so; but they must do so—and the calculations of reserves must be properly made—on the basis of historic accounting along the lines of the principle set up by the Accounting Standards Committee. I say that because not to do so would be to bias the capital of the successor companies in a way which is not comprehensible to the market. That is basically the thrust of Amendment No. 232ZA.
Amendment No. 232ZB argues a different point. It is a point which we discussed when the British Steel Bill was before this Chamber. A company having a statutory reserve shall not apply it, as at present drafted in subsection (2), except in paying up unissued shares to be allotted to members of the company; in other words, to be allotted in paying up what used to be called a scrip issue and what is now called a bonus issue.
I moved a similar amendment to this one during the passage of the British Steel Bill. I think that it found some favour with the Government at the time. It was not just a question of allotting fully paid up shares. Partly paid up shares could also be a possibility in this connection where one had part of the reserves paying up—that is, part of the shares which are on issue—and the other part subscribed by the market or whoever it may be.
Amendment No. 232ZC is to my mind almost incomprehensible. I should like to hear an explanation from the Government as to what subsection (3) is really about. If it is about what I think it is about, I will probably wish to oppose it.
However, if the Government can persuade me that it is not about what I think it is about—namely, the release of statutory reserves under certain circumstances by payment of a dividend—I shall accept what they say.
As I say, although I have accepted the grouping of these three amendments, they cover substantially different points. I should be most grateful if the Minister could reply to them seriatim so that we can debate each issue, even though they are grouped together. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The main purpose of this clause to to enable a successor company to be given an appropriate combination of distributable and non-distributable reserves. Many private sector companies have non-distributable reserves such as share premium accounts stemming from past share issues. There may well be a need to direct successor companies to create non-distributable reserves to place them on the same footing as existing private sector companies.
The clause has analogues in other privatisation legislation: it seeks to replicate private sector arrangements by enabling the Secretary of State to determine that a proportion of the accumulated realised profits of the transfer company should be carried to a statutory reserve of the successor company. This is a reserve which would only be available in order to issue fully paid bonus shares to members of the company and could not be paid to shareholders.
In the case of a supply company, the specified sum shall not exceed the accumulated realised profits of the area board concerned. Clearly the board's profits will have been calculated in accordance with accepted accounting principles and audited by qualified accountants.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he give me an assurance that all area boards calculate their profits by the accounting standards set by the ICA?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Having checked the matter, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that this will be the practice in the future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With respect, we are not talking about the practice in the future; we are talking about accumulated profit from the past.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall have to answer that question in the negative at this stage. However, noble Lords may be reassured to know that the Secretary of State's accounts directive to the industry specifically requires a true and fair view of the profit and loss and the state of affairs and source and application of funds of the council, boards and subsidiaries.
In so far as it is appropriate to nationalised industries, the accounts directive also requires the industry's accounts to meet the accounts requirements of various Companies Acts, the
98
accounts disclosure requirements of the Stock Exchange listing agreement and the best commercial accounting practices (including statements of standard accounting practice issued by the member bodies of the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies). In the light of this, I can see no necessity to detail such matters in the clause itself.
The statutory reserve created by subsection (1) will be in some ways analogous to a private sector share premium account, which the noble Lord mentioned. It is right that the use to which it can be put should be the same as the main use to which a share premium account can be put. In this connection the Companies Act 1985 (Section 130(2)) permits share premium accounts to be used for the purpose of allotting fully paid up bonus shares.
I note what the noble Lord said but that is what is contained in the Companies Act 1985. Parliament obviously thought it was correct, when passing that provision of that Act, that the general run of companies should be allowed to use share premium account money in paying up fully paid bonus shares but not partly paid bonus shares. I should have thought that we should not make any different provision for the electricity companies.
Subsection (3), which the noble Lord seeks to delete, clarifies the treatment of statutory reserves for the purposes of the Companies Act 1985. I believe that it is entirely right that this clarification should remain in the clause. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interpretation of accounting procedures. As I understand it, he says that in some ways what is being set up as the statutory reserve is the equivalent to a share premium account. "In some ways" is a rather curious expression. I accept that a share premium account is a non-distributable reserve and can only be used for a bonus issue on a fully paid share. Nevertheless, I still have to come back to the noble Lord and ask: have the accumulated realised profits of the transferor been calculated at this time on the point of transfer by reference to generally accepted accounting principles?
The noble Lord says that the answer is no. Then I wish he would say that the prospectus will reconstitute the accounts of the transferee successor companies and make sure that they are so calculated and that the whole thing is transparent. Otherwise it is nonsense.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As I understand it, the explanation I have given is a true and fair picture of the points which the noble Lord sought in moving the amendments. He sought an assurance that all accounts would measure their accumulated profits by reference to ICAs. No assurance is possible. As I have said, the Secretary of State's accounts directive requires the industry's accounts to meet various private sector accounting standards, in so far as they are appropriate to nationalised industries. There are differences. If the noble Lord finds it helpful, I shall of course write to him about those differences.

99
I hope that this explanation of why we seek in this clause to follow through the points that are in the clause, which obviously do not meet with the noble Lord's approval, will satisfy the noble Lord. If not, then I am afraid that I shall have to resist the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. They do not meet with my approval but that is neither here nor there. I simply wish to establish what the basis of the statutory reserve will be. The noble Lord said, "In some ways it will resemble a share premium account in a private company". The share premium account in a private company is established according to generally accepted accounting principles. The noble Lord has said that generally accepted accounting principles have not applied in the past. Therefore it will be up to the Secretary of State to decide what will be in the account.
I fully accept that. All I am asking the noble Lord is, will he please ensure that, in the prospectus which will be issued for successor companies, the accounts of the successor companies are re-worked, regardless of what the Secretary of State says about accounts of nationalised industries, in the manner in which a private company would have to do it, in order to set up a proper share premium type of account when the companies were first vested and then floated? If the noble Lord can give me that assurance, I shall be very happy. If he cannot give me that assurance, I ask him to consider the matter further.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance on such an important point without checking out very carefully the substance of my reply to his direct question. However, of course I shall look at the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I should have thought that by this stage of the Bill and at this point in the Committee stage, the Government would have responses to these points. After all, the Bill has been around for quite a long time. We need to know how the finances of successor companies will be constituted. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to write to me, but I shall reserve my position, and I may well come back on Report with further amendments, should that be appropriate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232ZE not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 232ZC.
Page 52, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Before I finish on this topic, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether in his letter—I presume to believe that I have some expertise in this matter—he will kindly explain to me exactly what subsection (3) of Clause 71 means. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 232ZC not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Statutory accounts]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZD:
Page 52, line 49, after ("1985") insert ("as amended by the Companies Act 1989").
The noble Lord said: I simply tabled this amendment to obtain an assurance that the reference to the Companies Act 1985 would include the words, after "the Companies Act 1985":
"as amended by the Companies Act 1989".
That assumes that the latter piece of legislation becomes an Act. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is indeed true that the Companies Bill would make substantial amendments to Part VII of the Companies Act 1985, which deals with company accounts. The noble Lord is therefore quite right in his presumption that, if and when the Companies Bill is enacted and Part I of that Bill comes into force, companies will be required to prepare accounts for the purpose of the Companies Act 1985
"as amended by the Companies Act 1989".
However, the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary, as the Interpretation Act 1978 already does the job for us. Section 20 of the Interpretation Act provides that where an Act refers to another Act, those references are to be references to that other Act, as amended. I trust the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. Can I then assume that the provision which is at the moment contained in the Companies Bill, that political contributions should be subject to shareholder resolution, will form part of the Companies Act 1985, and if the successor companies wish to follow that procedure, if it is still in the Bill, that will be imposed on them?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: That must be the case. However, of course, the Bill has not yet become an Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZE:
Page 53, line 6, leave out ("immediately before") and insert ("at").
The noble Lord said: It is normally the case in accounting practice that the balance sheet is constructed at the end of the year, rather than immediately before the end of the year; in other words, it is midnight on the night when the accounting year ends that the curtain drops, and any transactions that take place up to midnight appear on the balance sheet at the end of the year, and not those immediately before. "Immediately before"

101
seems to me a very odd expression to use because we are not quite sure what "immediately" may mean. If it were "at" the end of the year we should all be quite clear as to what it means. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: This is a very small drafting point. It is arguable in my opinion that the amendment is not necessary, but it would be much better if it were made.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Subsection (2) of Clause 72 provides that, for the purposes of the statutory accounts of a successor company, the vesting of an area board's undertaking in a supply company shall be taken to have occurred "immediately after" the end of the area board's last complete accounting year to end before the transfer date, and to have been a vesting of the board's property, rights and liabilities as they existed "immediately before" that time. The amendment would substitute the word "at" for the words "immediately before".
In terms of substance, the amendment appears to be intended to achieve the same effect as the words in the Bill. It may be that the noble Lord wishes to substitute more everyday language for that used in the Bill. However, I must point out to him that the amendment is technically defective because it assumes that the property etc. that is to be vested in the successor company can be defined as at the very same moment that the vesting takes place. But we have two steps here, not one: first, the property etc. to be transferred must be defined; and only then can it be transferred. The draftsman has taken some care to reflect this process by assigning each of the two steps to its own moment of time, albeit that those moments are separated by a very small space of time. In this way the draftsman has, I believe, attained logic and clarity, though at the necessary cost of departing somewhat from the conventions of ordinary langauge.
I hope that the noble Lord sees our point and accepts the explanation as to why it is unnecessary to change the wording.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am, as always, grateful to the noble Lord; but I do not believe that the draftsman has either logic or principle on his side. One can have an event which takes place after a paint in time, which is at the year end, immediately after the end; but there should be a position at the year end. On the other hand, one can have events which take place at the year end which can respond to events which have taken place immediately before the year end. What one cannot have is something which is immediately before and something which is immediately after the year end.
Lord Renton: It seems to me that "immediately before" could mean two seconds before. There is no difference and cannot be any difference in logic between saying that and saying "at the end". It is quite ridiculous in my opinion.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This is an argument which I believe needs to be looked at. It may be that
102
my own form of logic differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I am perfectly prepared to look to see whether logic is on my side, or on his side, having read what he said. If necessary, we shall come back to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. However, I emphasise that "at the year end" is a recognised accounting principle. "Immediately before the year end" is not a recognised accounting principle. If the noble Lord could look at the drafting again, I should be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZF:
Page 53, line 17, at end insert ("adjusted for material post-balance sheet events").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment of much greater consequence than the previous drafting amendment because it seeks to allow adjustment to the year-end accounts for material post-balance sheet events. Anyone who is a director of a public company knows perfectly well that a balance sheet is struck at the end of the year—if I may use that expression—and that subsequent to balance sheet date various things occur. We understand that vesting will not take place immediately at the end of the year in question but at some subsequent stage. However, if vesting is to occur and flotation is to occur at some subsequent stage, it seems only right that the true and fair view to which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, referred should reflect material post-balance sheet events. It would be quite absurd if a supply company or successor company had events that took place after the year end which materially affected its financial situation and were not incorporaed into the statutory accounts on which the vesting is to take place. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I fully understand the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment at this stage. Perhaps it will be helpful if I explain why we feel that he is perhaps not correct in his interpretation of what we intend.
It is our intention that the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the area boards in their successor supply companies will take place during the course of the current financial year of the boards. Clause 72 is a standard privatisation provision which seeks to ensure continuity between the accounts of the area board and those of its successor company and to avoid the need for both to prepare accounts in respect of the same financial year.
The clause operates by deeming, for accounts purposes only, the property, rights and liabilities of an area board to have been vested in its successor immediately after the end of the last complete accounting year of the area board to end before the transfer date. According to our intentions, that notional vesting would be considered to have taken place on 1st April 1989. The accounts of the successor company for the 1989–90 financial year will then cover the full 12-month period commencing on 1st April 1989.

103
The noble Lord may be concerned that there can arise a gap—I believe that that is the thrust of his argument—between the closing of the accounts of the area board and the opening accounts of its successor through which material events may in some way fall. But I can assure him that that is not the case. Material events taking place after 1st April 1989 will by virtue of Clause 72 be fully dealt with in the opening accounts of the successor supply companies.
I hope that, as a result of that explanation, the noble Lord will realise that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was referring to material post-balance sheet events. He is now talking about all material events subsequent to the year end. So we must assume that the opening accounts after vesting will reflect profit and loss material variations, that there will be a clawback on the previous year's accounts when a prospectus comes out, as it will do, and that all material events will be built into the new company accounts as at the opening date of 1st April 1989. If that is what I understand the noble Lord to say—he appears to be nodding and saying "Yes, that is the way it will be"—I am grateful to hear it. My next amendment will serve to clarify exactly what material events we might be talking about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZG:
Page 53, line 25, leave out ("revaluing").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, for supplying us with so much information about the closing accounts of the previous companies and the opening accounts of the successor companies.
We come now to the question of revaluing assets. It is perfectly normal that there should be a revaluation of assets under certain circumstances and in manners that are prescribed by the Accounting Standards Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and probably by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, although I understand that the two bodies will shortly merge.
The point of my amendment is that we must know fairly quickly—because we have gone past 1st April 1989—exactly on what basis the valuation of the assets of the suppliers will be made. Are they to be allowed to revalue on vesting in the way that a private or public company might revalue, depending on directors' valuations? Will they be issued by some governmental agency of some kind a directive on how to do this? Will they revalue their assets on a replacement basis, on a current cost basis or whatever?
A whole host of questions is raised on which I think that the noble Lord in his wisdom may wish to enlighten us. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter of revaluation. It is our intention that the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the Electricity Council and the electricity boards in their successor companies will take place during the course of the current financial year of the boards.
Clause 72 is a provision which has appeared in a more or less similar form in a number of previous privatisation statutes. Examples are Section 66, subsections (4) to (6), of the Telecommunications Act 1984; Section 55, subsections (4) to (6), of the Gas Act 1986; and Section 4, subsections (4) to (7), of the British Aerospace Act 1980. It seeks to ensure continuity between the accounts of a statutory corporation—the Electricity Council and the electricity boards—and those of its successor company. company.
The clause operates by deeming, for accounts purposes only, when property, rights and liabilities are to be taken as having transferred to the successor company; and by then requiring the accounts of the successor company to cover the full financial year in which the transfer took place as though the revelant property had transferred immediately after the end of the transferor's last complete financial year to end before the transfer date.
Clause 72(4)(a) says that, in the case of a supply company, this requirement shall apply to "anything done" by the transferor; and inside the brackets it then gives various examples of which revaluing is just one. I am advised that this means that the amendment would not in fact work, since even if deleted from inside the brackets that would not prevent "revaluing" being a "thing done" and so caught by the general provisions.
Drafting matters apart, however, I would submit that it is only sensible that this provision should apply to revaluations as to the other matters which might be potential sources of discontinuity between the accounts of a transferor and a successor company. It is clearly important that the assets of the electricity industry should be properly valued for flotation purposes and the Government will ensure that that is done.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will see that in this clause we are covering the very important point, which I fully understand, that revaluation must be carried through and, as I say, the Government will ensure that that is done.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I was very clear on what the Minister was saying until his last sentence. His last sentence was: revaluation must take place and we shall ensure that it will be done. I understood him to say that there should be no discontinuity between the accounts of the transferor companies and the successor companies. If it means anything, it means that assets valued by the transferor companies on the basis on which they value them will be valued in exactly the same way by the successor companies. If it does not mean that, I do not understand English. I understand from the noble Lord that that is what he says. That is quite different from saying that revaluation must be done.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I had better just clear up this matter. I understand what I said—the meaning of what I said was that the assets must be properly valued.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, I appreciate that the noble Lord is correcting himself slightly, but as I understood him—and I am sorry to repeat my words—he said that there should be no discontinuity between the accounts of the transferor companies and the successor companies. We are at one on that. Therefore the revaluation of the assets at the point of vesting is not what the noble Lord has in mind. There may or may not be a subsequent revaluation of those assets prior to flotation. I am asking for the basis on which such revaluation, if it were to occur, would take place.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not know whether this point would be helpful to the Committee or whether it has already been covered. In nationalised industries accounts have always been prepared on a current costs accounting basis, but accounts are being prepared on both historic cost and current cost bases so that there would be no problem with the transfer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am fully aware of that. Oddly enough, accounts have not always been prepared on a current cost accounting basis. It has been only in the past few years that that is the case. Historically it is historic cost accounting. Neither the Stock Exchange nor indeed the revenue accept current cost accounting as a basis. It is historic cost accounting. I ask the question: on what basis will these assets be revalued? I believe that we are entitled to an answer.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Having explained to the noble Lord what I thought to be the basis of the argument that the Government put forward, and having given the examples of what has taken place in previous privatisations, I should have thought that it was enough to satisfy the situation. The Government have no intention of changing the basis on which they operate in this area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Do I understand therefore that assets will not be revalued? Will the assets that are recorded in the accounts of the transferor companies, be they current cost or historic cost accounting, be translated straight into the vesting companies and straight into flotation? This is a point of very great importance.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I return to the point that I made. It is clearly important that the assets of the electricity industry should be properly valued for flotation purposes. The Government will ensure that that is done. That noble Lord, Lord Williams, speaks about no discontinuity of accounts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It was not my expression. It was the expression of the noble Lord.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Clause 71 deals with this in a technical sense. There are no gaps through which events can fall between 1st April this year and 1st January 1990. This clause does not require valuation and assets will be properly valued, as I have indeed said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have had a full discussion on this point. We shall return to it when we come to the questions of flotation in a later part of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232ZH not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Government lending to the companies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZJ:
Page 54, line 20, at end insert ("but in any event before the company ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We are dealing with government lending to successor companies. We learn in Clause 74(1) that, subject to the provisions of Clause 77, the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury, as always, make such loans of such amounts as he thinks fit.
My amendment addresses this question. At what point will the loans made by the Secretary of State to successor companies be repaid? My argument is that on privatisation there should be no loans outstanding from the Secretary of State to successor companies. They should be repaid when the company ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown. If the Government have any different view on that, I should be glad to hear it. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Subsection (1) enables the loans to be made to successor companies only when they are wholly owned by the Crown. Subsection (3) enables such loans to be made from the National Loans Fund. It is government policy that loans from the NLF are not available to the private sector. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to stipulate the time when a loan is to be repaid as well as the method of repayment and the interest payable until repayment. Therefore, under the powers already available, the terms of any loan will make it clear that the loan will be repaid before the company ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However I do not read the clause in the way that he reads it. Clause 74(1) reads:
"the Secretary of State may … make loans … to any successor company which is for the time being wholly owned by the Crown".
In other words during the period in which a company is wholly owned by the Crown, the Secretary of State may make a loan. The clause does not go on to say, as I understand it, that when the Crown ceases to be

107
the total owner of the company the loan shall be repaid. I may have misinterpreted the clause. Subsection (2) simply states that the loan,
"shall be paid to him … at such times",
and so on.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I believe that what I have said covers this point. I am looking closely at Clause 74(2), but I rest my case on the fact that the Government's policy that loans from the NLF are not available to the private sector covers this matter. I should have thought that that explanation would be sufficient to set the noble Lord's mind at rest.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Listening to these comments from both sides, I believe that noble Lords are slightly at cross purposes. Subsection (1) is quite clear. Subsection (2) leads me to support the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it does not say when a loan is to be repaid. What the Minister has said does not indicate that it cannot be repaid at a later date either. Why there should be a need to repay earlier I am not sure. I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Williams, believes a loan should be repaid earlier, but I do not believe that there is any obligation under subsection (2) to repay a loan at the moment when the company is wholly owned by the Crown. Some debt may be allowed to continue and be repaid under subsection (2) at such time and by such methods as the clause directs. It seems to me to be fairly open as to how the loan shall be repaid. The loan could be from the National Loans Fund during a time of eligibility, but yet not necessarily repaid during the time of total ownership.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, because she has exactly expressed the point I was trying to make that the availability is open to any company while it is wholly owned, but there is no necessity to repay a loan. The noble Baroness went on to say quite properly that she wonders why I want it repaid when the company ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown. On the other hand the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, says that it is not the job of the Government to make loans to private companies. There seems to me to be a conflict in the drafting. I should like that conflict resolved.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should make perfectly clear the fact that it is the Government's firm policy that all NLF loans should be repaid or extinguished before flotation and the clause allows for that. I thought that I had made that clear in my original reply to the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that the noble Lord is right is saying that the clause allows for that. However, the clause does not insist on it, as was made perfectly clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, in her intervention. Is the Minister saying that the noble Baroness and I are wrong in our interpretation?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Time and again, I have made perfectly clear that the Secretary of State may direct that loans must be repaid by a certain date or in a certain way and may specify the rates of interest to be paid. I believe that that is inherent in the clause.
I believe that that is sufficient explanation but of course I shall look again at what the noble Lord has said. However, I believe that I have made the case quite clear as contained in the clause already drafted.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hope that the noble Lord will look again at the drafting of the clause. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and I are at one on this purely drafting point. The intentions of the two sides are the same but I do not believe that the clause as drafted succeeds in realising those intentions. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Treasury guarantees for loans made to the companies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZK:
Page 54, line 40, leave out from ("on") to ("with") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: I am not entirely clear about the meaning of the words I propose to omit. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the meaning of the words:
"and the discharge of any other financial obligation in connection with".
I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is necessary for the Treasury to guarantee not only the payment of principal and interest but also other financial obligations such as any management charges or premia arising from early repayment. I hope that that is sufficient explanation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that the only financial obligations referred to in this rather curious phrase are commissions, early payment penalties and early repayment premia. Is that the sum of it?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Section 4 of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1973 extended a number of existing statutes, including the Electricity Act 1957, to include other financial obligations. When loans are covered by Treasury guarantee they can be obtained at an advantageous rate. Removing this area of guarantee could make loans either more expensive or more difficult to obtain. The whole point is that other financial

109
obligations, such as any management charges or premia arising from earlier repayment, are covered by this part of the clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure whether the noble Lord answered my specific question. We are talking about early repayment premia, commissions
110
and early payment penalties. If that is the case, and if that is all we are talking about, I am glad and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 76 [Conversion of certain loans etc. to the Scottish companies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZL:
Page 55, line 37, after ("value") insert ("or attributable net asset value whichever is the greatest").
The noble Lord said: Again, we revert to the statutory accounts of a company and in this case a Scottish company. The question I ask is whether the nominal value is the right parameter to fix in respect of a company to which securities are issued by virtue of subsection (2)(c) and whether it should not be the net asset value of the securities, whichever is the greater, because obviously it may well be that the net value is lower than the nominal value of the securities. I offer this as a contribution to the intellectual debate which I am sure the noble Lord is enjoying and I seek a response from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The two Scottish boards currently have debt of around £2·7 billion, which arises from successive investments which they have made in new plant. The first step in arriving at a capital structure appropriate to the new companies will involve the transfer of the Scottish nuclear company into the ownership of the two Scottish electricity companies, which will each receive a relevant proportion of shares in Scottish nuclear issued under Clause 64.
Clause 76 has no bearing on the valuation of those SNL shares in the parent company accounts. Shortly after vesting we shall extinguish the amount owed by the nuclear subsidiary to the National Loans Fund and replace them by securities issued direct to its parent companies. The Bill currently provides that the securities received by the parent companies from Scottish nuclear should be valued in the parent company accounts at the nominal value issued by SNL. That will allow for the replacement of SNL's extinguished liabilities pound for pound in the books of the parent company. It is not the Government's intention to create reserves in SNL so that valuation at the nominal value of each share as the Bill currently provides will achieve the same end as that sought by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Although I know that there are other related amendments which the noble Lord will wish to move and speak to, I hope that my explanation answers this amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord what happens if, under Schedule 12, assistance is given for decommissioning and that assistance is in the form of a loan rather than a grant. That may not happen in the case of Scottish boards because there may be no plants coming up for decommissioning. However, it will happen elsewhere and I take the opportunity of ventilating the point on this amendment. If there is a large loan given by the Secretary of State under Schedule 12 for decommissioning, that may wipe out the nominal
112
value of the shares in question and may reduce the equity of any supply company to zero or indeed minus zero. How will that be treated in the accounts of the companies when they come to be floated?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Presumably the answer which the noble Lord seeks refers to the Scottish nuclear company, which of course will be owned in the appropriate proportions by the two Scottish companies—75 per cent. and 25 per cent. I believe that the loans under Schedule 12 are outside the scope of this clause. Therefore, I do not believe that it is relevant to raise that particular matter relating to Schedule 12 in this case.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord finally replies to this, I hate to insert a technicality but should the amendment not read "whichever is the greater"?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is, as always, a student of grammar and he is right. I apologise; it should be "greater".
I accept that the question I raised is not appropriate under this amendment. I simply raised it as a marker for the noble Lord and the Government Front Bench that we shall be returning to this subject in due course with some force. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232ZM and 232ZN not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZP:
Page 56, line 20, leave out ("express or implied").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston and myself. I am uncertain as to the meaning of "express or implied". I can never quite understand what are the implied terms of a loan. I have always assumed that when I contract a loan as a lender or borrower the terms of the loan are pretty well specified. I shall be glad of an explanation from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The drafting of subsection (7) of Clause 76, to which the amendment refers, again corresponds to parallel clauses in the British Steel Act and the Water Bill. It would be inappropriate to require that the terms of any debentures issued should correspond to any early repayment terms applying to the loans which they replaced. The amendment before the Committee does not appear to take issue with that contention and I fail to see why implied early repayment terms should not be disregarded for this purpose in just the same way as any express terms.
If the main purpose is to be achieved, the removal of reference to implied early repayment terms might indicate that express terms should be ignored while implied terms should be respected. I believe that that would make nonsense of the provisions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may put a question directly. What is the meaning of "implied terms of the loan"?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My understanding is that "implied" in this case means that the terms of the loan are those which are agreed at the time. However, I should like to consider the term and write to the noble Lord with a full explanation of why "implied" is used in this case.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he also look at the word "express" to see whether it should not be "expressed"?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I understand that "implied terms" mean any terms which imply the possibility of early repayment. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord cannot get away with that. "Implied" means "implied" and I understand that. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me and also consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that "express terms" implies that they are fast terms, whereas "expressed terms" implies explicit terms. Perhaps he will consider the matter and write to me with a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 232A:
Page 56, line 34, at end insert—
("(10) In this section and section 77 below "successor company in Scotland" means a company nominated for the purposes of section 64(1) above.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Financial limits on borrowings etc]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 232B:
Page 56, line 48, at end insert—
("(3) In this section "successor company in England and Wales" means a company nominated for the purposes of section 62(1) or 63(1) or (2) above.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

  COMMONHOLD
  COMMONHOLD
  NORTHERN IRELAND: CERTIFIED-OUT TRIALS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: CERTIFIED-OUT TRIALS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SCHEDULED OFFENCES REMAND DATA
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SCHEDULED OFFENCES REMAND DATA
  IMMIGRATION APPEALS: JUDICIAL REVIEW
  IMMIGRATION APPEALS: JUDICIAL REVIEW
  REVERTER OF SITES ACT 1987
  REVERTER OF SITES ACT 1987
  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' ADVICE TO TRUSTEES
  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' ADVICE TO TRUSTEES
  MURDER THREATS: LEGAL SANCTIONS
  MURDER THREATS: LEGAL SANCTIONS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: FINES AND FEES 1987/89
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: FINES AND FEES 1987/89
  TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS: COSTS 1986/87
  TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS: COSTS 1986/87
  APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EC EXTENSIFICATION SCHEMES FOR BEEF AND SHEEPMEAT
  EC EXTENSIFICATION SCHEMES FOR BEEF AND SHEEPMEAT
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS TO US: USES
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS TO US: USES
  SET-ASIDE: PREMIUM SCHEME
  SET-ASIDE: PREMIUM SCHEME
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  TRIDENT MISSILES
  TRIDENT MISSILES