Sitting of 23 June 1989

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

  London Assessment Studies
  9.36 am
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I beg leave to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents. The first is from Nunhead Action on Road and Rail, signed by representative members of community groups including Nunhead Residents' Association, the Peckham Society and South Circular Alert, who are all concerned that the road assessment study proposals now being considered will destroy open spaces and the lives and homes of their communities.
  The second petition is from the Camberwell Society and is signed by 1,000 or more members, who also express their anxiety about the new road proposals and the view that if bigger roads are built, they will only attract more traffic —a view that I heartily endorse.
  To lie upon the Table.

Litter
9.37 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to call attention to the growing and unacceptable problem of litter; and to move,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to taking decisive measures to tackle the problem of litter; urges all those responsible for land in cities, towns and countryside to take account of widespread public concern at littering and discharge effectively their responsibility to keep that land free of litter; calls for urgent new measures to discourage littering, to assist those who are already taking seriously their responsibilities and to ensure that those w ho do not are obliged to do so; and supports the Government's proposal to place a duty on local authorities to keep their areas clean and to publish a code of practice.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for the opportunity to raise an important issue this morning. I regard the litter problem in this country as being a non-party policitical issue that cuts across the political divide. However, I was bitterly disappointed that on two occasions my non-contentious, non-political Control of Litter (Fines) Bill was objected to by two Labour Members. When in future I hear Labour supporters claiming that they care about the environment and about litter-related problems, not only will I take their remarks with a pinch of salt but half the salt in Siberia.
I shall not dwell on the past but will look to the future and try to analyse what constructive measures can be taken to eliminate the litter problem, which is becoming such a blot on our landscape. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly expressed her disgust at the state of our towns and countryside, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has won widespread praise for the vigour with which she tackles the problem and seeks to find relevant solutions that will meet the problem. Their concern is reflected by worries expressed throughout the country about declining standards of cleanliness in public places.
A recent Department of the Environment poll showed that almost 75 per cent. of people surveyed are worried about litter. Similarly, a poll by FDS Market Research revealed that 76 per cent. of British people think that there is more litter about now than there was 10 years ago. Sadly, Britain is in danger of becoming the dustbin of Europe.
Our inner cities and towns are riddled with litter abandoned by thoughtless, selfish litter louts. Our countryside also suffers from the dumping of litter, and the sides of motorways and major roads are a national disgrace. No longer is our nation a green and pleasant land. Fast food packaging, crisp bags, disposable drinks cans and cigarette stubs mar our environment: we are a nation that wallows in filth.
Why are we such a dirty nation when so many people express genuine concern and disgust at the sad state to which we have reduced ourselves? I believe that there are three answers. First, it is a question of attitude. Recently I visited Japan to study its litter laws, and was amazed to be told that the main thrust of that country's actions to deal with the problem was related to attitudes, rather than taking the form of a battery of laws and regulations. I was astonished by this revelation. Not only are Japan's streets infinitely cleaner than ours, but we could not possible rely on the attitudes of individuals. The attitude of the average

609
person in this country is clearly entirely wrong and negative. Stand in any high street or drive behind any car and it is the same dismal story—people thoughtlessly abandoning their litter on the pavement or spilling it out of car windows.
It is just as amazing that few people who witness such spectacles have the courage to speak to the culprits, not only to tell them what they think of such actions but to try to chivvy them into picking up their litter. There seems to be complete apathy and lack of interest.
We need a complete change in attitude, and I believe that most of that change can be brought about by parents. Just as children are told from an early age that it is wrong to steal or lie, so they should be instructed not to drop litter. As a second step, parents should educate their children and lead by example. Sadly, however, the current initiatives in schools will probably mean that the children will start educating their parents rather than the other way about.
Another way of quickening the pace of changing attitudes is to alter the general perception of the problem, just as smoking has changed in the public's perception from a harmless, glamorous habit to an anti-social and disgusting one. People should not turn a blind eye, but should go up to those who drop litter and tell them exactly how selfishly and anti-socially they are behaving. It will be a long process, but that is no excuse for doing nothing.
Secondly, legislation has a key role to play. Laws encourage cleanliness and establish a deterrent against the more slovenly and selfish members of society. In his "Notes on Paris", Baudelaire wrote:
"Everyone's washing pavements. Even when it is pouring with rain. It's a national obsession."
Paris and other major European cities require people by law to keep the pavements in front of shops and houses clean. Every morning, and again in the afternoon, elderly ladies can be seen along with staff of retail outlets, scrubbing down the pavements in front of their homes and shops and making their contribution to keeping the law.
In West Germany people can be prosecuted if the streets in front of their houses are grubby, or even if their house fronts are not up to standard. In Australia litter droppers can be fined up to £240 on the spot. Something must do done in this country to strengthen existing legislation and to give local authorities real powers—powers that they are crying out for—to enforce anti-litter legislation.
The major anti-litter legislation—the Litter Act 1983 —is a national joke. It is ineffective because it is rarely used, and it is rarely used because the police are far busier carrying out more important tasks in combating crime: not unnaturally, the enforcement of litter laws is fairly low on their list of priorities. Even when litter louts are charged, the law is so complex that it is difficult to secure a successful prosecution. To prosecute successfully involves first seeing the offence being committed and secondly proving that the offender intended to drop litter. It is difficult to obtain evidence, and the derisory fines imposed by magistrates do not help.
The difficulty of enforcing the legislation is highlighted by the number of prosecutions between 1983 and 1988. They amounted to a mere 5,901, in a country with a population of over 50 million. Taken on a county or police-authority basis the figures are even more depressing.
610
In 1987 the county with the best record was Cumbria, with 296 prosecutions; the next highest figure, however, was 88, showing a drop of more than 200 in a single year. Greater London, with a population of between 7 and 8 million, boasted a figure of 18 prosecutions in that year, and in my county of Essex only 39 people were prosecuted. Of the 42 shire counties, 27, or about 65 per cent., prosecuted fewer than 40 people. Seven areas, including London and Merseyside—two places where it might be argued that the problem is at its greatest—prosecuted fewer than 20 people, and Cambridgeshire prosecuted only nine.
The punishments meted out by magistrates were equally depressing, thus establishing a general feeling that people can commit offences almost with impunity. Even if they are caught and successfully prosecuted—which, as those figures show, is fairly unlikely—the punishment will be very minor. The maximum fine under the 1983 Act is £400; the average fine actually imposed is £32.
The 1987 figures highlight the problem. In that year 1,628 people were fined a total of £57,407, an average of £35 per person. The majority of those—962—were given an average fine of only £19, while 475 were fined an average of £41, 154 were fined an average of £86 and only 37 were fined over £100, with an average fine of £183.
Those figures show that no deterrent is being built up. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister should have a quiet word with the Lord Chancellor and encourage him to make known to magistrates the maximum fines under the 1983 Act, and to point out tactfully that the present level of fines is unacceptably low and is not helping to solve the problem. People are treating the fines as a joke, and will continue to offend with impunity.
The 1983 Act should be amended so that merely dropping litter becomes an absolute offence without the requirement to prove intent. However, but more must also be done on the legislative front to reinforce existing laws. I certainly do not advocate the repeal of the 1983 Act. We should keep it on the statute book, but should bring in further legislation to give local authorities the powers that they need and want to enforce the law effectively. Another way in which the Act should be strengthened is the removal from the police of the powers and requirements to enforce the Act. The police do not have the time to enforce it. They are overburdened. It is more important that they should reduce the level of serious crime rather than have to enforce the Litter Act. That power should be given by law to local authorities. They want it, and because they want it they will ensure that it is used to maximum effect.
Local authorities should also be allowed to give designated officers the power to impose on-the-spot litter fines. The example of Westminster city council shines like a beacon. It has shown the Government how to tackle the problem. Last year, by private legislation Westminster city council secured the right to allow designated council officials to impose on-the-spot fines, or issue fixed penalty tickets. Dozens of local authorities are carefully watching the Westminster experiment. They desperately want the powers that Westminster has taken for itself by means of private legislation, but the only way in which to obtain them is to introduce a private Bill, which is time consuming. Each local authority would have to use the private Bill procedure, which would cost a not inconsiderable sum of money. The Government could get round the problem by introducing legislation that would automatically give to all local authorities the power to use the legislation, if they so wish.

611
I am confident that the legislation would work and would help to solve the problem. Westminster city council has been given the power to designate local authority workers and officials as people who have the power to issue fixed penalty tickets to litter louts. Between 50 and 60 people have been designated as able to use that power. That is in addition to their existing work. Many of them also check building regulations and scaffolding. No additional employees would be needed, thus leading to a greater burden on ratepayers. The litter work would dovetail with their existing functions. I suspect that in the case of certain smaller local authorities—including, possibly, Chelmsford borough council—there may be a problem. They do not employ as many staff as Westminster city council, so they might have to take on additional staff. However, I do not believe that community charge payers in the smaller local authorities would be averse to paying for additional staff, provided that their streets and town centres were cleaned up.
If Westminster officials see that people are dropping litter, they have the power to go up to them and ask them to pick it up and either deposit it in a rubbish bin or take it away with them. If they meet with a refusal, they have the power to issue a fixed penalty ticket, in just the same way as traffic wardens issue parking tickets. A person who is given a fixed penalty ticket has two weeks in which to go to a magistrates court if he disagrees and thinks that he should not have been issued with a ticket. Either he can contest it in court, or he can pay the fine. Such a power is badly needed by all local authorities.
Early results in Westminster show that it is an effective power in the war against litter. Between April 1988 and April 1989, 727 people were approached in Westminster, and 723 of them either picked up their rubbish and deposited it in a rubbish bin or took it away with them. Four of them were issued with a ticket. The first successful prosecution took place two weeks ago. Somebody was taken to court under the Litter Act, having been issued with a fixed penalty ticket, was fined £40, and £35 costs were awarded against him.
Some may argue that the fact that only four people were issued with fixed penalty tickets is minimal, but that is to miss the point, because the other 723 people who dropped litter in Westminster picked it up. When they are next in Westminster I am quite sure that they will think twice about dropping litter again. If local authorities used the power properly, they would build up a reputation for being hot on litter, in just the same way as London has a reputation for being hot on people who park their cars illegally and then find that their cars have been wheel-clamped. People do not like having to spend relatively large sums of money on getting their cars back. Similarly, they would not like to suffer a penalty for dropping litter. If local authorities were known to be hot on little louts, people would think twice before discarding their empty fag packets, sweet papers or fish and chip packaging. That is the crux of the matter.
Cash dispenser wall units in banks, which are such a boon to people on Sundays when they have no money, are also a nuisance. Time after time the little slips of paper that come shooting out are abandoned. At the end of the day the pavement around any bank is awash with them. Banks realise that this is a problem and they are taking steps to counteract it by installing litter bins near dispensers. Sadly,
612
however, for far too many lazy people it is just too easy to drop the slip rather than to walk a few feet and deposit it in a bin.
Food outlets, banks and retail shops should be made responsible for keeping the pavement outside their premises litter free, just as businesses in European cities have to take on that responsibility. Yesterday I received a letter from the Retail Consortium. It said that it believes that this is a valid point and that it is trying to encourage its members to get their staff to keep the pavements in front of their premises clean. Sadly, however, legislation is needed so that businesses are required to do that. Public-spirited companies and businesses are prepared to do it, but far too many of them either do not think about it, or they cannot be bothered, or they think up every excuse under the sun for not doing it because, they say, it will increase costs and therefore prices to the customer, or they will have taken on additional staff. That is nonsence but they will not see it like that until it is staring them in the face and they have to do something about it.
A good case can also be made for extending the legislation to the owners of private dwellings. They, too, should be made responsible for keeping their front gardens and the pavements outside their front gates clean. It is not just the Government or local authorities who should be made responsible for keeping our streets, towns and countryside litter free. The Government and legislation provide important leads, encouragement and deterrence, but all of us, as responsible citizens, must play our part. There would be moaning and complaining and barrack room lawyers and wide boys would try to think up every excuse under the sun as to why the legislation would not work. They would say that it is an infringement of civil liberties and they would trot out all kinds of other rubbish. But that is not necessarily true. Such initiatives should he given a chance to work, because after a number of years, when the problems have been dramatically reduced, people will welcome the fact that their pavements are much cleaner and they will wonder why on earth they had not taken the initiative years before. The moaning and groaning will be long forgotten because there will have been an improvement to the environment in which we live and that will be welcomed.
I welcome the possibility that the Government will place a duty on local authorities to keep their areas clean. The publication of a strict code of practice would ensure that positive action results in cleaner streets, roads and countryside. Obviously I cannot anticipate any announcement that my hon. Friend's Department may make and the battery of initiatives and powers that it may suggest to clear up the problem, but I hope that it will announce that provision. Local authorities should have a greater duty to keep their streets clean. I know that some excellent local authorities spend a great deal of time and money on rubbish collection and road sweepers, but other local authorities fail in that respect. I believe that all local authorities should look again at the practices and procedures that they employ to keep their areas clean. Some of them are failing in that duty and they need prodding by central Government to ensure that they raise their standards. I suspect that a code of practice is the only way to achieve that as individual ratepayers and community charge payers will have the right to appeal to a court to make sure that their local authority fulfils its duties.

613
Local authorities could and should do more to review the frequency of street cleaning and rubbish collection, espcially in shopping areas. They should also ensure that there are sufficient litter bins in public places and that they are emptied frequently. All too often litter bins are cascading with litter that has not been collected. Sometimes black dustbin liners remain on the streets for too long before being collected. They get damaged and litter spews out all over the highway and the pavements. If local authorities are worried about the provision of litter bins in towns, villages and cities they should do more to involve local business men. Local business men should be encouraged to sponsor the placing of more litter bins in the high street. Retailers will welcome the opportunity to spend money on more litter bins, and, as a quid pro quo, no one would object if they put their names on the sides of the bins as a form of advertising so that people know that the entire community, including the business community is involved in solving the problem.
It is important to harness public good will towards combating litter. I do not think that any hon. Member from any political party, can underestimate the depth of feeling and the magnificent work that many people do throughout the country to try to address the litter problem and persuade people to behave in a cleaner, more social way. Sadly, until relatively recently, they were like an echo in the dark. They were considered by some to be a minority special interest group—the litter nuts who banged on about a single issue. They had no success and it was a waste of time. I pay tribute to their perseverance and their dedication. They were not litter nuts, they had identified a problem that many politicians have recognised far too late. At least politicians now recognise the problem, but only due to the dedication and work of those people.
Far too many people are litter louts. It seems to be ingrained in the British subconscious. But there is another brighter side to the coin. Up and down the country many public-spirited people are prepared to help by going out on litter picks and by going to schools, talking to children, highlighting the problem and trying to make them appreciate what will happen to our environment if it is allowed to continue. They try to enthuse youngsters so that they can play their part and educate their parents out of their anti-social behaviour. Those people have spent many long, thankless hours seeking solutions to the problem.
In Chelmsford, we are fortunate to have an ad hoc "Cleaner Chelmsford Committee" led by the former mayor of Chelmsford, Councillor Phillip Firth and comprising councillors, business men and concerned individuals who have done much sterling and recognised work over many years to try to address the problems in that town. Their efforts are reinforced throughout the country where, in other local authority areas, town and villages, concerned individuals have grouped together to do something rather than simply to moan about the problem. National organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy are doing tremendous work by highlighting problems, publicising the need for action and trying to co-ordinate individuals and the private sector. All that is going on at a subconscious level, below Government through individual initiatives which are appealing to
614
people's sense of civic pride, almost shaming them into changing their habits and doing something positive to clean up.
That approach can be extended from private groups into the education system. I welcome the anti-litter campaigns in our schools that have been initiated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). It is important to get youngsters actively involved and interested in the subject and so that, one hopes, that will lead to a change in attitude and as they grow up they will instil in their children that one does not drop litter.
More should be done to encourage the recycling of rubbish. Sheffield, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) knows a great deal more, is engaged in an exciting project involving central Government, the local authority, industry and volunteers, with the aim, over the next three years of showing that there are better ways of using rubbish than merely throwing it away. I believe that that project plans to cash in on up to 50 per cent. of the city's 250,000 tonnes of annual domestic waste output. It is an ambitious project and I wish it success because it will encourage other local authorities to expand their modest plans for recycling, through bottle banks and waste recycling programmes. If there is a success story in one part of the country and it is shown that local authorities can make money out of rubbish it will be a great incentive for other areas to follow that example or to expand their own projects to maximise the benefits which, we hope, will come to Sheffield.
Similarly, manufacturers have a role to play. I welcome that fact that one of the major soft drinks manufacturers in Britain is looking into ways of redesigning cans of soft drinks because those irritating ring pulls are always thrown away and create litter everywhere. It is looking at ways of redesigning those cans so that the spikes, for want of a better word, remain stuck to the can. Perhaps manufacturers could reconsider, on a purely voluntary basis—the Government cannot direct through legislation —reintroducing the old refundable deposit system for bottles and cans. I remember when I was a child that it was a source of extra pocket money to collect the bottles, take them back to the retail outlet and receive perhaps an old tuppence or threepence. If that was reintroduced, it would encourage people to save their bottles rather than just abandon them. The individual would get money back and the material from which the bottles or cans are made could be re-used. Manufacturers should give that serious consideration.
Manufacturers should also ensure that more take-away food is packaged in bio-degradable material. Most hon. Members will accept that one of the most depressing sights in our towns is the litter outside the fast food outlets at about 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night. Fish and chip papers are strewn all over the street together with hamburgers, fried chicken and so on. Rubbish is just abandoned everywhere. Manufacturers could and should do more to look into the use of bio-degradable packaging for fast food. It is excellent that Kentucky Fried Chicken is in the process of changing its methods so that shortly 80 per cent. of its packaging will be bio-degradable. Also, Wimpy is to be praised because it too has moved away from plastic packaging to bio-degradable packaging. That is a step in the right direction but far more manufacturers and fast food producers could move in that way.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that a condition of planning permission should he that people who are given fast food agencies—I accept that they are a good way of obtaining staple food—have to agree to a litter-cleaning clause so that they have to employ people to clean around their area? Will he also consider flyposting and graffiti, which I also think of as a form of litter?
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend's first point is extremely valid. If the Government were prepared to introduce rules and regulations to make retail outlets, fast food outlets and banks responsible for the pavement outside their premises, I hope that we would not have to go so far with the planning legislation. However, if it is felt that making retail outlets responsible for the pavement would not be enforceable, it would be worth looking into the planning aspect to see whether the problem can be tackled in that way.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's point about graffiti, which I also see as a form of litter. I should like to see greater parental control. I suspect that much of the graffiti is done by young children in their early or mid-teens who, at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night should not be allowed to wander our streets bored out of their brains and taking aerosol cans to walls because they have nothing better to do. They should be under their parents' control at home. Greater parental control would see a reduction in the problem. Also, if people are caught flyposting or spraying graffiti on walls, they should be made to clean it up. They would find that a particularly unpleasant job and would not want to repeat it in a hurry.
The current litter problems are totally unacceptable. Once the situation has deteriorated to a certain level lethargy and apathy take a grip and it is much more difficult to improve matters. If people are used to living in filth and litter, instead of trying to do something about it they will accept it, become immune to it and contribute to it. If they are walking down a street which is covered in litter, they will not bother to make the effort to throw their rubbish away in a bin or take it home with them. Therefore, it is difficult to pull people out of their lethargy. We have to ensure that action is proposed to improve the problem and give further enthusiasm to those who are concerned and want to find a solution. Also, people who complain about the problem at present would see that improvements can he made and they will become enthusiastic and everyone will make a conscious effort.
I welcome the Government's commitment to tackling the problem and I look forward to the announcement in the Queen's Speech and the publication of the green Bill. The Bill is widely and eagerly awaited. I am confident that the work being carried out by the Department of the Environment will result in concrete proposals which will meet the expectations that have been raised. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, if we bag it and bin it, we really will win it.
10.17 am
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on bringing the subject of litter to the attention of the House. There is no doubt that he has been tireless in his efforts to try to persuade the House to take the matter seriously. The
616
hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who unfortunately could not be here today, has also made many speeches on the subject of litter.
There is some irony in the fact that the hon. Member for Basildon should follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will be aware of some modest rivalry over the county town of Essex. Of course, Chelmsford is the county town but, over the past few years, since the Liberal party has taken control of the district authority, there has been a deterioration in the general well-being of the environment in Chelmsford. It was that which prompted me to say that perhaps we should break away from the tradition of Chelmsford as the county town and move it to Basildon, which has undergone many improvements in the past few years. However, I believe that the political balance in Chelmsford has been somewhat redressed and on recent visits to Chelmsford I have noticed some improvements.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that there is not one member of the Democrats or SDP present? At local level we have to put up with bits of paper being pushed through our doors saying that they are against litter. They are in favour of sunshine and people behaving themselves, but, above all, they are against litter. Surely the representatives of those parties could have organised themselves so that at least one hon. Member would be present today.
Mr. Burns: It is extremely interesting that the Democrat Benches are completely empty. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for that is that in Chelmsford arid throughout the nation the lights are going out for that party?
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend's remarks are most apt. Liberals keep putting bits of paper through letter boxes saying that they are opposed to litter. Today is a golden opportunity to debate the subject in the House, but not one Social and Liberal Democrat Member is present.
A few weeks ago, I was privileged to participate in a debate with a cross-section of young people. It clearly emerged that they were concerned about environmental issues. They raised with me issues such as lead-free petrol, the Amazon rain forests, the ozone layer and all sorts of other environmental problems. My raising the subject of litter was a hoot. They said, "Who's bothered about litter? Cans and bits of paper do not matter." Following last week's substantial vote in favour of a party that has expressed concern about our environment, the problem of litter should be No. 1 on the list of priorities. It is within everyone's power to do something about it, but it is symptomatic of the problem that insufficient young people take it seriously enough at present.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, litter is a nationwide problem, although I am sure that some Opposition Members would say that the north and midlands are tidier that the south. However, that probably has something to do with the general split of the population.
I do not wish my remarks to be construed as an attack on the people who try to keep our streets, highways and byways clean. I applaud the work of dustmen—as, no doubt, SLD members would were they present—and those who sweep our streets. They have a rotten and difficult job.

617
They cannot keep up with the amount of refuse that is chucked on the ground by people who take it for granted that someone else will pick it up.
The problem of litter should be at the top of the agenda and the political debate that we are enjoying. I shall briefly tell hon. Members how we are tackling the problem in Basildon.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment responded to an Adjournment debate at the end of January and is therefore only too well aware of what we are trying to do in Basildon, but other hon. Members may be interested to learn about our general approach. Last year, we launched the "I love Basildon" campaign, which was a public declaration stating that we are building and creating a fine town and that we wish to keep it that way. We are tackling the problems of litter, graffiti—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)—and vandalism. On a cross-party basis, the community is working together to ensure that our town is the cleanest in the country. None of our ideas is original; they have all been tried before. Local businesses and fast food chains are sponsoring litter bins, and we are installing anti-litter bins.
We are trying something in Basildon that has not been tried before. Tonight, unannounced—although I suppose that I am announcing it now—I am going on a midnight patrol through the town to see at first hand what is going on. I shall ask young people of 13, 14 and 15 why they are standing on street corners, perhaps creating some sort of disturbance. I am sick to death of people saying that they are bored. It is different if someone is not well or is having a breakdown, but how people in 1989, with all the problems that we face, can say that they are bored is beyond me. There are many activities to occupy all minds, regardless of age. I shall be going on my midnight patrol tonight to find out about vandalism and to tackle the problems of graffiti and litter.
Mr. Tony Banks: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's initiative. I hope that nothing ill befalls him when he is patrolling around at midnight. Is it not a rather odd time to be patrolling, or was the hon. Gentleman just using a catchphrase? If people are hanging around on street corners in Basildon at midnight, I suspect that it will not be because they are bored but because they are up to no good. It might rebound on the hon. Gentleman when they find out who is asking them questions.
Mr. Amess: I shall tackle the problems regardless of the consequences. The hon. Gentleman is right; I was using a phrase, because the patrol will begin at 9 pm and finish at midnight. I should probably have some difficulty in seeing litter at midnight.
Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend's announcement of his unannounced visit will interest everyone. A man in my constituency is a great contributor to various causes. He is a very nice man and I am not trying to belittle him, but if a list of donations to a cause is shown he always takes me to it and says, "Do you see where it says 'anonymous'? That is me."
Mr. Amess: I do not have an appropriate answer to my hon. Friend's intervention, but I thank him for making it.
Basildon is holding a front and back garden competition to decide who has the nicest garden. The general purpose is to highlight our aim of making Basildon as attactive as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that there is money to be made out of rubbish. How right he is, and we shall certainly make money out of rubbish in Basildon. We have an excellent company called the Basildon Waste Paper Company and local businesses have invited Scouts, Guides and others to do what was always done in the past—to collect newspapers, cans, can rings and other refuse, with all the proceeds going to local charities.
Basildon has the largest covered shopping centre in Europe. I am trying to encourage the people who run it to play a looped tape that will welcome people, thank them for shopping in Basildon and entreat them not to drop their litter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that litter should not be a party political subject. Unfortunately, politics is slightly involved in Basildon because there is a never-ending argument about who is responsible for cleaning up a green. Basildon has a new town commission, a district council and falls under the control of Essex county council. I am not bothered who clears litter; I just want Basildon kept clean and tidy. We should not fight over who will earn brownie points for cleaning up the place, which is why I am calling on the Guardian Angels. I know that there is some controversy about the Guardian Angels, whose logo quotes the words of Edmund Burke. It says:
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men remain silent and do nothing."
I am not prepared to become involved in the argument about the merits of what the Guardian Angels have tried to do, but the House may be interested to know that the Guardian Angels have a branch that is prepared, free of charge, to try to clean up areas. I am inviting them to come to Basildon to clean up some areas about which constituents have written to me. We contacted the appropriate authorities, but nothing happened. In one part of London, the Guardian Angels have issued on excellent traders' charter, and local businesses have rallied round. I applaud the efforts of the Guardian Angels, and if they can clean up Basildon, I would welcome it.
Those who know Basildon well will have noticed the signs saying that Basildon is a nuclear-free zone. I do not want to become involved in the U-turn on nuclear energy in which the Labour party has engaged, but I believe that there should be big signs at the entrances to our town saying, "Welcome to Beautiful Basildon." I want everyone in Basildon to be proud of the area in which they live.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that we need a national solution to the litter problem. I praise the Government's efforts to clean up our highways and byways. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants the problem to be taken seriously. I applaud the efforts of the Keep Britain Tidy campaign and Project 2000 and last week's announcement on what we will do to educate people to read signs so that their dogs no longer foul footpaths. We must be positive about the issue and get people to take it much more seriously.
There are two sides to tackling the problem—education and penalties. Through the national curriculum we must

619
ensure that little children are educated on the subject. That is why I was pleased to receive this morning a handwritten letter from schoolchildren in Basildon, saying:
"My friends and I at Lee Chapel Primary school have collected these milk bottle tops in response to the appeal to keep Basildon tidy. We do hope that this effort will go some way to make this possible.
Yours Sincerely
Mary, Karen, Jo-Anne and Emily."
The letter was accompanied by a beautiful drawing of one animal saying to another,
"I wish they would keep Basildon tidy".
That is a profound message.
We must ensure that young people are educated so that they can embarrass their parents and stop them dropping litter. Yesterday, I was driving behind someone in a brand new BMW who must have had pots of money. He pressed a button so that the electric window came down and then calmly chucked out cigarette ends and packets and crisp bags—that from a supposedly well-educated member of the public. Who does he think will pick up the rubbish?
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said about the project in Westminster. I am delighted that one of my constituents is working on it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is aware of the zip patrols which highlight particular areas in Westminster and have been very effective. It is sad that we must resort to the tactics of imposing on-the-spot litter fines. Those efforts are necessary until the effects of radical changes in education are felt.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on giving the House the opportunity to air our litter problems. I hope that the House and the nation will take this matter seriously so that, in years to come, we will be proud of the Government's achievements and will have ensured that Britain is the cleanest country in the world.
10.34 am
Mr. Harry Greenway: I, too, warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on initiating this imporant debate. Nothing does more to damage a community's morale than litter scattered about and the dirt that it causes. I remember when, as a young national service man doing basic training, a sergeant-major picked up a colleague's spoon from a pile of litter. He said, "Do you see this, soldier? What is that?" The soldier said, "It looks like grease." The sergeant-major replied, "Yes, it is grease. Grease draws dirt. Dirt kills soldiers!" That was one of the most dramatic pieces of discipline that I have ever seen. I have always remembered that sequence of thought—grease draws dirt, dirt draws germs and germs kill people. That is why litter is such a serious matter. That is why my hon. Friend has done the House such a service in introducing this important debate.
The thoughts of the House will be with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) tonight following his announcement of his unannounced visit to the street corners of Basildon. We wish him well in his noble endeavours. I hope that the friend who always tells me about his anonymous donations will not be hurt if I say that he sometimes asks, "Do you think that you could announce at the next meeting that I made another anonymous donation?" Anonymous kindnesses should be flushed out and announced. Likewise, my hon. Friend's unannounced visit should be known. It will be awaited with great interest.
620
Nothing does more to damage the environment than litter. We are becoming increasingly conscious of the environment. I wonder whether the House is aware that, by recycling a skipful of newspapers and other paper, 50 trees would be saved. Half the world's trees are used for pulp to make paper and other material. It is tragic if that paper is wasted. In addition, trees take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. We should remind ourselves every day of their positive contribution to the environment. The beauty of growing trees, even strugglers, shows the hand of God upon our environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon implied in the middle of his speech that litter starts to become a problem in schools. It is my experience, as one who served in schools for 23 years and finally ran a school of 2,200 for seven years, that the school leadership needs to keep firm control over litter. There is nothing more demoralising than children walking about scuffing paper in the corridors, yard, playgrounds or sports fields. That happens in some schools. It happens largely because ice cream vans, crisp-selling vans and the like are sometimes allowed to park inside the school grounds without the vendors accepting any responsibility for collecting the litter that is created by the products they sell. I know from my own experience that children very much want tuck such as crisps, but I also know that the difficulties I have described often result. The vendors of crisps and ice creams often make handsome contributions to school funds. That is valuable and positive, but would be lost by my proposal, which I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider in her reply.
Would it not be possible for all ice cream vans, crisp-selling vans and other vehicles which sell such items to school children to be kept at least 100 yards away from the school gates? That is necessary for reasons both of litter and of discipline. If a school is attempting to control children during the lunch hour, as is its responsibility, there is often indiscipline with children breaking school bounds and rushing out to the ice cream or crisp-selling vans to make purchases. Either the vans must be brought into school, so that there is no question of school discipline being broken, or they must be taken right away. I would prefer them to be taken right away unless, by coming inside the school premises to sell their wares—and people make considerable sums from such sales—the sellers accept the responsibility of assisting the staff to persuade children to put litter into bins, which they should provide, and they should also clear up the area where children have been eating food.
Heaven knows that teachers have enough to do, but it would help greatly if they got into the practice of tapping the shoulders of children who drop a piece of paper and asking them to pick it up and put it in a bin. That should always be done. Schools should also have litter squads. Sometimes children drop litter and are not apprehended and told to put it in the bin. Schools should set up squads of children, perhaps defaulters, for we no longer have the cane and some sort of sanction must be found for children who misbehave. Collecting litter is not a bad sanction and I used it from time to time when I was a teacher. Children who have misbehaved could be formed into litter squads and at the end of the morning, the beginning of the afternoon or the end of the day, they could pick up any litter around the school so that it is always spotless. If schools are spotless, they are attractive. If they are derelict and strewn with litter, morale goes quickly.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman not wrong? Is he not encouraging the wrong philosophy by saying, as I think I heard him say, that children who misbehave should be formed into litter squads? In his initiative as a teacher, he linked punishment with collecting litter. That does not encourage and foster the attitude that the collection of litter is a matter of pride in a school. Making litter collection a sanction associates it with being punished by one of the teachers.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I said that I thought the first way to induce a good anti-litter attitude in children was by teachers asking them to pick up litter. I said then that it could be a useful disciplinary procedure to form litter squads, and there have to be disciplinary procedures. It is no good saying otherwise.
Mr. Tony Banks: I did not say that.
Mr. Greenway: I myself also organised squads positively by inviting children to join squads and saying, "Come on, let's clean up the school. Look at the mess." I used to collect the litter with them. If head teachers and deputy head teachers are helping as well, although heaven knows, they have enough to do running institutions of 2,200 children, the job will be done as it should be.
It is imperative that children leave school at 16 or later dedicated to the idea that they should not throw litter in schools, on pavements, or anywhere else and that they should always find a receptacle for litter. My old grandmother, who lived to be 95 years of age, always carried a bit bag in her handbag when she became an old lady. If any mess was incurred, such as when she read a letter and wanted to get rid of it while sitting on the bus, she would tear it up and put it in the bit bag. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West should carry a bit bag round with him.
Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the Prime Minister was doing that.
Mr. Greenway: I am not suggesting that the bit bag would be for his speeches—or for mine. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a bit bag and it is a fair tip, especially for people who are immobile and who cannot get to a rubbish bin. If they are carrying something like a big bag, they can put the bits into it.
One must applaud the efforts of the Westminster city council in its anti-litter drive, but nationally, we must try to reach the standards of other countries, even Spain, where there is a daily litter collection. That happens in some parts of this country as well. In very hot parts of Spain, if there were not a daily collection of litter, diseases would quickly spread. We have to extend that principle to this country, even though it will cost more.
Mr. Patnick: One of the odd things about litter and waste disposal in Spain is that waste disposal is carried out by private contractors. Also, litter is collected during the hours of darkness. Would my hon. Friend care to consider those points?
Mr. Tony Banks: We should get the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to do it.
Mr. Greenway: That is another task for my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) makes a
622
most telling point when he says that litter in Spain is collected during the hours of darkness. It is collected at 3 am or 4 am and, no doubt, account is taken of that in the wages paid to the refuse collectors. The fact that it is collected by private enterprise organisations must mean that there is great efficiency.
Mr. Tony Banks: There are far more practical reasons why that is done in Spain and in Greece as well. First, it is a damn sight cooler at night. Collecting rubbish is not a nice job anyway, but collecting it in the heat of the day in Mediterranean countries would not be at all pleasant. Secondly, it is necessary, in the heat, to have far more collections because of the obvious effect of heat on food rubbish in particular.
Mr. Greenway: I made my point about Spain because, at present, it is as hot here as it is in Spain and we must take account of that, although I know that such heat is only too rare here. However, the hon. Gentleman makes his own point effectively.
I must speak briefly of the situation in Ealing. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon said that he did not like to bring politics into this matter. I do not either, but I must point out that this year, there have been serious reductions in street cleansing and refuse collection in the London borough of Ealing, although the rates have increased by 32 per cent. and, two years ago, they increased by 65 per cent. People are concerned that they are paying far more in rates, yet the streets are not being cleaned as regularly as before and refuse is not being collected as regularly as before. That is serious. Public cleansing and refuse collection services should not be cut but should be at the top of the list of priorities because of the dangers to health.
Our foolish and politically unwise council made a serious mistake. Over Christmas and the New Year we had no refuse collection for 10 to 14 days. There were bags of litter everywhere: outside people's houses and in the street. That led to a plague of rats, which was extremely serious. Once rodents establish themselves—and nowhere is it easier for them to do so than where litter is lying around as it was on the streets of Ealing at the turn of the year —they are tenacious.
Some people say that in one year two rats can produce 1,200. Once a rat plague is established it is immensely difficult to put a stop to it. That was the problem facing the borough of Ealing as a result of the council's foolish and wicked failure to collect refuse over the Christmas and New Year period.
I am not saying that refuse collectors and street cleaners are not entitled to proper Christmas holidays like everyone else, but we cannot say to them, "Off you go boys, all of you, for a fortnight's holiday and forget about the rubbish" because of the possible results. Proper services must continue to be provided. We cannot expect people to carry them out for peanuts. They will have to be paid more for working at a time of year when they could expect to be on holiday, or they should be allowed extra time off at another time of the year when there is less pressure.
There is no doubt that the events of last Christmas must not happen again. Next Christmas I look forward to proper street cleansing and refuse collection in Ealing without fear or favour. We do not want rats back in Ealing, or people slipping and falling into rubbish bags for

623
weeks after the festival. Once a large amount of litter has accumulated it takes ages to clear the backlog. Litter must not be allowed to pile up.
There is a serious problem of litter and smoking in many public places, caused notably by visitors to churches, cathedrals and museums. I saw somebody smoking in Westminster Abbey last week and it took me back 20 years to when I last saw somebody smoking in a cathedral in St John's Cathedral in Warsaw. I have never forgotten the offence I felt at that. If people smoke and throw their cigarettes on the floor of a beautiful cathedral, it is a great offence to other people and affects law and order. When the incident occurred in Warsaw cathedral, an old lady rushed at the individual concerned and had to be restrained because she was so hurt by the action. When I saw the smoker in Westminster Abbey last week I also wanted to rush at him, but I did not. I had a word with one of the bedesmen who received a pack of cheek from the individual for asking him not to smoke.
Does the Minister agree that people smoking and throwing litter about in our beautiful churches, cathedrals and abbeys should be fined £1,000 on the spot or if, quite sensibly, they do not carry such amounts, be asked to pay as soon as possible?
Perhaps even more severe penalties should be imposed. Such offences must not be allowed under any circumstances. They amount to a desecration of God's house, are wholly and grossly offensive to other individuals and produce litter, with all the knock-on effects which I have described. The practice of dropping litter is growing. Officials of the abbey and of other cathedrals have told me that more people are coming into churches and cathedrals on a casual basis. They do not have a religious background of any kind and, with the sad weakening of religious education in schools, they do not even respect God's house and do not realise that what they are doing is offensive.
We may be reaching the point where we must have in Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral and other such great and fine institutions, notices declaring, "No smoking under any circumstances. Offenders will be fined at least £1,000 if they do so." That would be a sad day but we may be approaching it.
10.55 am
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I, too, wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), not only on securing the debate, but on the considerable tenacity with which he has pursued the subject. He has placed an excellent Bill before us, and has been extremely tenacious, despite the unexpected cries of objection from Opposition Members every time the matter comes up. I look forward to the Bill having a better fate in the future. I also congratulate him on the wide-ranging and comprehensive nature of his speech and the way in which he looked at almost every aspect of litter.
It ill-behoves this place to lecture the nation on its litter habits. Ever since I came to this place I have been disgusted by the scenes of devastation which can be seen after any Committee meeting or any normal day in the Chamber. Leaving Committee, we crunch across a sea of litter which is much less pleasant and less elevating than crunching across a sea of autumn leaves. I hope that when television finally comes to the Chamber, some panning
624
shots will be shown of the scenes in the Chamber when we have finished for the day. Sadly, once the people of this country have seen those shots I do not think they will take our strictures on litter terribly seriously. Some of the powers given to Westminster city council could well be given to the Serjeant at Arms and others in the House to enforce better conduct.
I recently took one of my hon. Friends, certainly not anyone present today, to task for his litterous habits in Committee when my feet had literally sunk into the litter being dropped from the neighbouring seat. I asked him what he expected to happen to the litter, and he replied that there were people to pick it up. His reply was horribly reminiscent of the philosophy of those who say, "Oh, dear, the servants will do it." I also thought that his reply might contain implications that he expected women to clear it up. I have noticed that those who do not throw down litter in Committee or the Chamber are the 41, now 42. female Members.
On the Committee on which I serve, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and I are the two who regularly take our litter away with us. I do not see why everyone else cannot do the same. When we look at Committee rooms and the Chamber at the end of a lengthy debate we cannot, realistically, turn round and talk about the disgusting habits of litter louts and others.
Mr. Patnick: Does my hon. Friend think that litter bins in the House of Commons would be any less decorous? Could we not have more litter bins to encourage Members to place their waste papers in them?
Miss Widdecombe: I thoroughly support the comments of my hon. Friend. However, we are not all entirely geriatric. It is a short step from the Committee rooms to the Committee room corridor where bins are placed at fairly regular intervals. I cannot believe that it would be a vast strain, even at the somewhat anti-social hours at which we sometimes leave Committee and the Chamber, to walk to one of the receptacles and place our litter in it.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be interested in my suggestion that each hon. Member should carry a bit bag.
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed I am. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) could be quite enterprising. He could come in with a supply of bit bags and sell them at 5p a time for some worthy cause. Hon. Members could collect them from the Lobby as they came into the Chamber. All that is required is a little self-restraint, which is what we are asking the general public to practice.
On the more serious question of how we enforce tidiness, I entirely agree that we need adequate penalties and, perhaps more important, that those penalties should be backed by an adequate will to solve the problem. I am rather sorry that the 741 people in Westminster were merely asked to pick up their litter. It would have had a more deterrent effect and would have caught the popular imagination far more if those 741 people had been issued with fixed penalty tickets. I do not say that vindictively because I cannot believe that a fixed penalty ticket for litter will create a terrible stigma; it is not likely to blight a

625
person's life, any more than a parking ticket is. It would have made the point more effectively had those people been issued with fixed penalty tickets.
If there are to be penalties for litter dropping, they ought to be enforced vigorously, at least initially, to get the message home that dropping litter is an offence, and involves more than merely being asked to pick the litter up if one is unlucky enough to be caught. We must make it clear to people that they will have to pay the penalty.
If that practice were adopted more widely and if there were fines nationwide along the lines of the Westminster scheme, take-away food containers, fish and chip wrappings and other common causes of litter, including cash dispenser receipts, could have warnings stamped on them to the effect that a fine was likely to be imposed if they were dropped. At the moment there is no immediate warning to the person who is thinking carelessly of throwing something away that by doing so he may incur a fine. Dropping litter is rarely a deliberate action; it is a careless and uneducated action.
Mr. Burns: It has just occurred to me that all slips that come out of cash dispensing machines carry a number identifying the owner. In 99 per cent. of cases the person using the card to obtain money at a cash dispensing unit is the legal owner of this slip. Would there not be a case for the police to collect up the slips of paper left in the street and start to prosecute the guilty parties? That would surely have a deterrent effect?
Miss Widdecombe: The police simply do not have the time, but litter wardens or council officials could perhaps trace a random sample of guilty parties. If that process were accompaniesd by a great deal of publicity, it might be effective. A more effective way of solving the problem would be to educate people from a very young age not to drop litter. It would then be an automatic response.
The sponsored picking-up of litter is one good way of making the whole process fun rather than making it seem like punishment. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) had a good point when he said that people should regard picking up litter not as punishment but as natural, worthy and—from the school child's point of view—fun. There are few sadder sights than a playground strewn with litter, which reminds us that we are not teaching our children to respect their environment. Ultimately the success of our attempts will depend on the will with which the arrangements are enforced and on the deterrent effect.
A couple of years ago I returned to Singapore, where I spent many happy years as a child. That country has very strict litter rules, and one does not see litter on the streets of the main city of Singapore. In the surrounding areas, however, the streets are every bit as dirty as London's streets. The reason is obvious. In the city, litter laws are enforced vigorously. The clean streets are something of a showpiece and a matter of national pride. Outside in the residential areas, the laws are not strictly enforced, so there is no deterrent and people continue to drop litter.
It is not just a matter of having strict laws; they have to be enforced universally. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was so right to talk about front gardens and back gardens. We have a lovely garden in front of the block of flats in which I live in London but the
626
hydrangea bushes fail to be enhanced by the crisp packets, Coke tins and so on carelessly tossed in from the street. We need laws to prevent that from happening. It is a deliberate act; it is not the same as someone happening to drop his chewing gum packet on the ground. People ask themselves, "Where can I put this?" and then throw the object away in the most convenient place. We must inculcate the right attitudes in people at a very early age. At the same time, we need realistic penalties and the will to impose them. Such penalties could be an attractive source of revenue to councils.
I commend the Westminster example but in particular I commend the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and wish it a better fate in the few weeks left to us.
11.7 am
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in this excellent and long overdue debate.
We are all becoming increasingly aware of our environment. Over the past year a number of issues have hit the headlines and the amount of media attention that is being given to the environment is increasing day by day. That concern is encouraging, the more so because it comes from the younger generation. But our concern for the environment is still not sufficiently well targeted. Most of us want the environment in which we live to be improved but we do not have a clear idea of what we could do and what ought to be done or of what principles should lie behind our concern. Some people worry about global warming, some about planning applications and the urbanisation of our countryside while others worry about noise. Many of the environmental groups are in conflict with each other, but one thread runs through all their concern—the idea that it is someone else's job to solve the problem, and that the Government, local authorities or local businesses should be responsible for solving environmental problems.
The debate is especially relevant because we can all improve our environment by solving the problem of litter. Litter is one aspect of pollution. We need to have a few general principles to apply in dealing with pollution and in ensuring that the world is a cleaner place. The first principle should be the principle of minimising waste. In future the way in which we produce things—from motor cars to hamburgers—should involve keeping by-products to a minimum and, wherever possible, those by-products should be re-used. If that is impossible, we should ensure that what is left over is recycled. That applies particularly to litter. If we are to minimise waste and the amount of wastepaper and other items left around our towns and countryside, we must encourage industry to examine more closely the way in which it operates and, specifically, the way in which it packages its goods. Increasingly over the years we have become a consumer society and in the process we have increased the volume and content of packaging at the expense of the volume and content of the product itself. Packaging, which now accounts for an increased percentage of the whole product, ends up in our litter bins—it is to be hoped—or lying around somewhere for someone else to collect.
The other day I read about the extreme example of an American company that produced a potato peeler the

627
same colour as potato peelings. The idea behind that rather shrewd marketing tool was that when the housewife peeled the potatoes she would throw away the peeler as well and would have to buy another one. However, the company found that the potato peeler was not selling very well because no one could see it on the shelves. It decided to surround it with a large, brightly coloured and expensive package, and as a result it sold like hot cakes. That is not the direction that we should follow when producing items for sale because it would not encourage waste minimisation. We must ensure that those involved in marketing and retailing present their products for the public to see and to buy without including a huge amount of packaging. After all, packaging does not add value to the product; indeed, it simply costs the customer more.
Having reduced waste to a minimum, there will still be a great deal left over about which we must do something. With litter, that should mean recycling. Earlier this year I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute Bill procedure to encourage the recycling of wastepaper. I did that partly because of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), of the number of trees being chopped down each year to meet our demand for paper, but also because of the problems with litter generally.
The amount of raw pulp that we import each year adds £716 million to our import bill. What is even more significant is that we also import £9 million of wastepaper for use in the various production processes in the paper mills. We do that despite the fact that there is a surplus quantity of wastepaper lying around in our towns and in the countryside. There is a strong incentive to ensure that increasing amounts of wastepaper and other products are recycled. In the process used to produce items for sale, any remaining waste should be recycled. It may be bottles, batteries or wastepaper. Litter is a prime candidate for recycling.
Of course, hon. Members are not entirely innocent of leaving litter around the House. The Committee Rooms always contain huge amounts of paper that hon. Members have had to leave on the floor because there are so few litter bins in the rooms.
Miss Widdecombe: Hon. Members do not have to leave litter on the floor. They have a choice between that and picking it up and carrying it to a bin. They are under no compulsion to choose the former. It is a dirty, filthy habit in which, unfortunately, too many hon. Members indulge.
Mr. Mans: I was simply painting the picture as it stands, and not suggesting—
Mr. Tony Banks: I want to make this a pincer movement on the hon. Gentleman. I, too, am absolutely disgusted by the filthy habits of Members of Parliament, both in Committee Rooms and in the Chamber. One of the advantages of there not being very many hon. Members in the Chamber today is that at least it will remain tidy. Hon. Members should not use the excuse that because there is no litter bin they have to put their rubbish on the floor, because members of the public will then use exactly that excuse when they are on trains or in the street. They will say, "I couldn't find a bin, so I threw it on the floor." It is exercising double standards to lecture members of the public while setting such a terrible example in this place.
Mr. Mans: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) jumped in rather too quickly. I was trying to paint a picture of what actually happens now. Of course, it is absolutely right that we should lead rather than follow and that we set the public a good example. I think that more litter bins would help, but of course that is by no means the whole argument. I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to expect hon. Members to take their litter out of Committee rooms and put it in a bin. Nevertheless, it would improve matters if there were more litter bins in the rooms, although that is not a panacea in itself and we need to do more.
Although the Chamber is rather thinly populated today, I am glad that the hon. Members present feel so strongly about the amount of litter that we leave around. One of the points that I made when I introduced my Bill was that we should encourage the Palace of Westminster to recycle the wastepaper collected. I regret to say that I have not had a great deal of success with the authorities in trying to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Patnick: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House that the Department of the Environment uses recycled paper. She said during a recent debate that that was being promoted within her Department. I hope that other Departments follow suit.
Mr. Mans: I, too, wish that that would happen. After introducing my Bill I wrote to every Secretary of State asking what they were doing about using recycled paper. The responses varied tremendously, and many of them lapsed into a form of officialese that said very little, but took an awfully long time to say. Even more depressing was that many of the replies contained photocopies of those replies. I am not sure why they did that, but perhaps they were for me to send to some mythical constituent on whose behalf I was supposedly raising the issue. In fact. my letters made it perfectly clear that I wanted to know exactly how many Departments were using recycled paper. The Palace of Westminster and Government Departments could do a great deal more, by way of example to encourage the recycling of paper products, which in itself would generate the demand for more recycled paper and would encourage the collection of litter.
The world's natural resources are ever-diminishing. We cannot afford simply to dispose of everything. We must try to recycle it and so minimise the amount of raw materials used to produce products. We face a huge challenge in ensuring that we maintain and increase our standard of living, yet at the same time design products that ensure minimum use of our natural resources. We must ensure that products contain little waste, but, where they do, that waste must be collected and recycled.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. As I said earlier, this debate is long overdue. I hope that some concrete proposals come out of it.
11.18 am
Mr. Tom Cox: This debate is crucial, but like so many of our Friday debates it makes me wonder how much coverage it will receive in the media. Reference has already been made to the fact that when the television cameras are introduced we will have to smarten up or our

629
electorate will complain. We must question whether this is the sort of debate that television producers will want to show. It is certainly a very important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on moving the motion.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made a valid point about recycling. Sadly, we live in a throwaway society, and big companies encourage it. I am sure that many hon. Members can remember that, when something went wrong with our household appliances, we could get them repaired. Hon. Members should try to get even the smallest component for something. People in big companies or in small family shops say, "Sorry, they do not make them any more. You will have to buy the entire unit."
I am sure that, every week, hon. Members get several letters from their constituents complaining about these very issues. Britain is often called a dirty country. That refers to many aspects of the environment in which we live. There are grounds for saying that, certainly in large cities. Hon. Members have referred to other cities in the world. Those of us who travel find that many large European cities are far more advanced than our own in trying to keep areas clean. When I have attended Council of Europe meetings in Paris, I have seen the Paris municipal authority motorcyclist whose job is to clean up dog mess. That is a superb idea. It is a means of showing people that it is wrong to allow dogs to fould pavements and that the Paris local authority is concerned about it.
We have been talking about crisp-packet litter and so on. I do not dispute that it is a problem, but it is only one aspect of the overall problem. The condition of streets is obviously of great concern, but, one wonders—when one can find them—how often rubbish bins are emptied. We see them overflowing with crisp packets, drink cans and so on. That is no encouragement for people to say. "I should take my litter away." People tend to add their litter to the pile.
What about the number of abandoned motor cars that no one seems to do anything about? After a week or so, it is obvious that some cars are abandoned, and we must take up the matter with the police. They say, "It is not really anything to do with us. You had better get in touch with the local council." The matter then drags on for a month or so. I am sure that all hon. Members have seen mattresses and old furniture dumped in the streets for days on end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) recently introduced a Bill to control fly tipping. Fly tipping is an enormous problem in parts of London and, I am sure, in many large cities. It may even be a problem in some small towns. The Minister is concerned about that problem.
I saw someone in a van dumping rubbish in the London borough of Wandsworth. I took down the registration number and a description of the van and of the person driving it. That was on a Sunday afternoon. On the Monday morning, I referred the matter to the technical services director of the London borough of Wandsworth, who was concerned and said, "Thank you very much for informing us of this. If we catch this person will you be prepared to appear in court?" I said, "Certainly." After a couple of weeks, I rang up and asked, "How are you
630
progressing?" He said, "We are terribly sorry to tell you, but we now find that that van, like so many, had false licence plates on it." The Minister is aware that some individuals make enormous sums of money by removing rubbish. Sadly, because they have false number plates on their vehicles, nothing happens to them. We must introduce much stricter laws as soon as possible.
One sees lorries travelling around carrying materials with no cover over them. I have often seen loads being shed as lorries swing around to Vauxhall bridge. The Minister may say that loads should be covered if the material can come off the back of a lorry, but that requirement does not seem to be enforced often.
The motion calls for the introduction of new measures. I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree with that. However, I take some exception to the last two lines of the motion, which state:
"and supports the Government's proposal to place a duty on local authorities to keep their areas clean and to publish a code of practice."
I do not disagree with the principle of that, but many hon. Members have served in local government and know that, because of the Government's rate-capping policies, many local authorities whether Labour or Conservative-controlled, face enormous problems in administering their services. I realise that the occupant of the Chair cannot comment on hon. Members' speeches, but, in Adjournment debates, Conservative Members often call for things to be done on the very measures that they have supported in the Lobby. They call for extra funding for certain things to be done.
Mr. Patnick: I am sad that we have got into a party political debate on a subject that I thought would cross party boundaries. It is possible for councils to save large sums of money by competitive tendering for the services that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If we are to put the matter into the political arena, let us start from point one.
Mr. Cox: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I was about to refer to that very issue.
Local authorities were once responsible for cleaning their areas. I served on the metropolitan borough of Fulham. Our road sweepers took great pride in their job. They had their patch. By God, if anyone dropped rubbish on their patch and they saw them doing it, they would chase them and tell them to pick it up. I saw that happen in the Fulham Broadway area. After the road sweeper had cleaned the place, someone walked along and dropped some rubbish. Also, according to poeople who work in hospitals and schools, that pride does not exist because contractors now clean hospitals and schools.
One of the largest hospitals in the country, St. George's hospital, is located in Tooting. Staff there complain bitterly about the conditions after contractors have been in, supposedly to clean. There is no pride in or continuity of work. Contractors work in one area for a few days and they know that they will be somewhere else next week or the following week, so there is not the pride that there was. That is sad.
While acknowledging that the problem is of great importance and that the public generally must be encouraged to keep the environment much cleaner, we should also exhibit far more concern about the pay and conditions of those responsible for providing cleaning services. The comment about competitive tendering madev

631
by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) sounded wonderful, as do so many of the things that we hear from the Government, until we see them working in practice. If one talks to those responsible for cleaning services in Wandsworth, for example, one learns that overall conditions of employment and pay are much worse under private contractors than they were when the local authority was the employer. Poor pay and conditions will not encourage into those jobs people with the kind of commitment that existed when cleaners were answerable to their local authority and related to their local community.
It is said that local councils should provide more recycling amenities in the form of bottle banks and paper reception centres, for example. Although local authorities are not hostile to such initiatives, they ask where they fit the budgets that they must now observe.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that everything must fit a budget. However, in the case of recycling there are perfectly good schemes in operation in other parts of the country, particularly in the north-west, whereby companies are happy to site wastepaper igloos and other recycling devices in car parks and elsewhere free of charge. Also, county councils will refund money to local authorities that free them from the dumping of that rubbish on their tips. Local councils who examine such possibilities more closely will see that the implications are positive, not negative.
Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting comment. However, investment is still needed. I acknowledge that if such policies are pursued, they can generate a great deal of money for the benefit of ratepayers and the community as a whole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) can testify from his experience as a member of the Greater London council. I am not arguing that only local authorities should finance the necessary facilities, but they should at least be up front in setting an example. However, many are unable to do so because of the Government's rate-capping policies.
Mr. Mans: Nonsense.
Mr. Cox: With great respect, it is not nonsense. If Conservative Members ask council officers about the problems that confront them, they will be told—as I have been, by a Conservative-controlled borough that I serve as a Member of Parliament—that rate-capping is one of them.
If fines are to be imposed, they must have a truly deterrent effect. In this day and age, it is no use fining people £5 or £10, because they may consider that to be a laughing matter. In other parts of the world, people pay very dearly if they are caught littering the environment. Greater emphasis must also be placed on education. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) mentioned the education of children, but that of adults must not be overlooked. It is not children who empty cigarette ends into the road or who throw rubbish from car windows. Perhaps the Government, together with local authorities, will consider a programme of education and the imposition of more severe penalties.
Some boroughs provide skips in certain areas at weekends, and that service is properly publicised. There will always be people wondering what to do with an old
632
mattress or piece of furniture. They should be made aware that it is only necessary to take it to a nearby council skip for it to be disposed of. Very often, refuse collectors will say—and I do not criticise them for this—that it is not their job to take away mattresses or old pieces of furniture. All local authorities should give far greater publicity to skip and other clearance services, so that such items will not be dumped.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford has done a first-class job in introducing his motion, which I hope will have the Government's full support and receive the publicity that it deserves. I was once a Government Whip, and on many occasions I sat on the Government Front Bench listening to debates about measures that I thought were long overdue, yet a month or so later one would ask oneself, "Whatever happened to that idea?" I hope that that does not happen to the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
11.37 am
Mr. Tony Banks: I, too, believe that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is 10 be congratulated on introducing the motion. It was noted by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that, despite the small number of hon. Members present in the Chamber, a great deal of feeling has been generated, and I underline that point. I become positively homicidal when walking around areas of Forest Gate in my constituency that seem to be particularly filthy, observing people drop litter, and seeing the result. The cleaners do a good job in that area, but in a matter of 20 minutes, half an hour or one hour after they have finished, the place is filthy again.
We all agree that dropping rubbish in the street is socially offensive. It is also environmentally and economically wasteful. It does not give me any great pride to say that I have not come up with any initiatives such as that of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who proposes walking around his constituency at midnight. I certainly would not go walking around Newham at midnight—not that I am anything but a much-loved Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, I do not fancy trying to have a rational discussion on Marxist philosophy with the kind of people who hang around street corners in Newham at midnight after they have had a skinful in the local pub.
My borough is one of the filthiest in the whole of London, and London is one of the filthiest cities in Europe, if not the filthiest city. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned how Paris copes. What is that city's secret? It is no secret. The authorities in Paris devote a considerable amount of public money to maintaining services. The secret, such as it is, is a combination of resources, political will and the determination to see a project carried through to its conclusion.
Paris's infrastructure, too, is more favourable to street cleansing, its wider boulevards making for easier access, and there is more space to store rubbish from the streets. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting will know, street cleansing methods there are very different from those employed in London. The streets are washed down daily, and mechanised cleansing and "poop scoops" are much more widely used. Similarly, the Paris metro is much better than the London Underground system; again, it is a matter of resources and political will. We can will the

633
end, but we must also provide the means. Plenty of people in this country are prepared to say what is desirable, but when they are asked to devote resources to achieving that desirable objective the resources somehow are not there. That is certainly true of the Government's attitude to litter.
I receive many complaints about litter from my constituents, who blame the council for this problem, along with so many others. "What is the council going to do about it?" is the question that they usually ask. While I share people's concern about the level of services provided in any borough, I must point out that it is not councillors or council officers who go around throwing litter on the ground; it is the dirty people in the area. Rather than fulminating against Newham council or storing up their anger to visit on me when I happen to be walking in the streets, my constituents would do better to direct that anger against some of those who are perpetrating this social nuisance.
We must ask ourselves why we in this country, and in London, are so filthy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting has said, we live in a "chuck-away" society, existing on a diet of fast food. It is considered a mark of progress no longer to sell bottles on which a deposit is charged, providing an incentive to take them back to the shop. When I was much younger, I was quite a budding little capitalist: I used to do quite well from collecting bottles, taking them back to the off-licence and getting the money. Now, however, we have the throwaway bottle, replaced in many instances by the can. There is a lot to be earned from recycling aluminum cans, but schemes are needed to encouage people to take bottles and cans to bottle and can banks.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) mentioned packaging. Nowadays everything is contained in increasingly attractive and increasingly useless packaging. Products seem to be sold on the basis of the packaging rather than the contents. That is where so much of the competition comes. Vast quantities of paper litter are generated, and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is also a waste of trees. Hon. Members are among the worst offenders because of the amount of paper that we generate and receive in our post bags, much of which ends up in the rubbish bin. I hasten to add that that does not include letters from constituents—I had to put that in! Most of it is mail shots.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr Cook) was on a train one day, having gone through a vast quantity of post. Some of the organisations that had written to him had helpfully put their names on the envelopes, so he was able to throw some of the post away without even opening it; and a number of unopened letters went straight into the bin. As he was getting off the train my hon. Friend was chased by the guard, who called after him, "Mr. Cook, you seem to have left all these unopened letters." My hon. Friend was faced with the embarrassment of having to accept all the unopened letters—and, no doubt, the unspoken criticisms of many of his fellow travellers, who obviously believed that that was the sort of things that Members of Parliament did.
I tell that story to make the point that Members of Parliament receive huge amounts of unecessary and unwanted mail, as, indeed, do householders generally. The
634
increase in the amount of "rubbish mail" that comes through the door every day is generating a litter problem and wasting resources. Another contributory factor is the upsurge in fast food chains. I remember the days when the only fast food shops around were the fish and chip shops: now every shopping street in the country has any number of fast food outlets.
In the inner-city areas in particular, the sense of community has been all but destroyed. I remember that when my mother or my father, of course, had finished cleaning the path—ours was not a sexist household, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can well imagine—they would put down the bucket of water and sweep the pavement and gutter outside. Some old people in the east end can still be seen doing precisely that, but I do not see many people doing it. Such practices date back to earlier days when there was clearly a much stronger sense of community spirit and community pride. The destruction of that sense of community is, of course, partly the fault of planners, the new brutalism of 1960s architecture the building of those appalling tower blocks.
At the last count, Newham had about 110 tower blocks —I say "at the last count" because the odd tower block is always being blown up when it is found, after only 25 years, that it was rendered unsafe by the method employed in its construction. As well as being an undesirable living unit, a tower block may prove structurally unsound. Although inhabitants of tower blocks, stacked as they are in vertical "streets", live in dense concentrations, they are isolated at the same time because there is access only on each floor. Such tower blocks are nasty, unpleasant, brutalising places in which to live, and it is not surprising that so much filth, graffiti and violence builds up. There is a depressing downward cycle: the more violent and unpleasant the environment in which people live, the more they want to go inside, close the door and allow whatever is happening outside to go on. It is nothing to do with them; they are glad to get away from it.
The central problem, however, is one of social attitudes. While I join hands with Conservative Members on the foulness of litter on the streets, I part company with them on the causes of the problem. I think that there is a very political element in it. Life in Britain, in my view, is now brutal, greedy, selfish and increasingly violent.
Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to high-rise and high-density flats. Will he cast his mind back to who decided to institute such close living conditions?
Ms. Diane Abbott: Macmillan.
Mr. Patnick: The hon. Lady has just arrived in the Chamber. I was speaking to the organ grinder.
Can the hon. Gentleman remember who instigated that, who continued it and what ensuing Governments did to try to stop some of the projects that were under way?
Mr. Banks: As a matter of fact, I am a ventriloquist; I was speaking without moving my lips. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) is absolutely correct, but I would prefer to put the hon. Gentleman down myself, rather than leaving the privilege to her. In the 1950s and 1960s, Governments, both Conservative and Labour, encouraged that sort of building. Unfortunately, it is today's generation, today's councillors and today's politicians who have to try to clear

635
up the mess. I am making no narrow party political point over the building of tower blocks. It is down to the planners and politicians of the day.
When I was a member of Lambeth borough council there was a scheme to build more and more tower blocks. The planners talked in glowing terms about the kind of communities that they would create. When one looks back, one can almost see that those people thought that they were acting in the best interests of the people. They were going to do away with the back-to-backs and insanitary houses that had no proper facilities; instead they would provide nice, modern flats. They were absolutely wrong.
That is why, among all the occupations that I hate the most, the long-term planners head the list because they always manage to get it wrong. I should like to find the planners and the politicians who decided to put up those tower blocks, put them on the 22nd floor, have the doors nailed up and leave them there for a while. Those who designed tower blocks and pushed for their construction were not the people who ended up having to live in them. I shall always condemn the decisions that were taken in the 1960s. I can also say with a clear conscience that when I was on Lambeth council I was bitterly opposed to the building of tower blocks. In that respect both my conscience and my hands are clean.
I have already said that life today in Britain is brutal, greedy, selfish and increasingly violent. The blame for that combination of nastiness lies squarely with the philosophies and policies of the Government, and in particular with the Prime Minister. She is the person behind it. The Prime Minister denies that there is anything called society. She says that there is just a collection of families and individuals. In her daily utterances the emphasis is on the individual, not on the community—it is all right to be selfish and greedy. That is the essence of Thatcherism today.
Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Banks: I am not the hon. Lady's Friend, but I shall still give way.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; he is not my hon. Friend. Is it not the case that society's habits as a whole are dictated by those of the individual and that the Prime Minister's message is about the responsibility of the individual to contribute to society? The kind of matters that we have been discussing this morning are the responsibility of individuals. If individuals picked up their litter, did their social duty and played their part as active citizens, that would make for a decent society. So it is down to the individual.
Mr. Banks: But society is more than just the aggregate of the individuals who live within it. Society collectively sets the norms and the values that are then translated into the action—social or anti-social—of individuals within society. That is the way it works; it cannot work the other way round. We cannot say that society is merely a collection of unrelated individuals. That is where the Conservative party gets it completely wrong. It says that society is no more than the market and that, if we allow individuals to act on their own, there is, somehow, a secret means by which they will all end up acting responsibly.
Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: I shall give way to all Conservative Members who wish to take me on.
Mr. Greenway: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). As he is sitting behind me, I did not realise that he had risen to his feet.
There is a fundamental division between us. I believe, and so do my colleagues, that we achieve progress only if individuals work together. The collectivist, Marxist approach—which believes in progress on the back of an amorphous thing called society—is inadmissible because it does not work. That is not to say that I do not believe strongly in a sense of community. But a community is a collection of individuals, not a mass.
Mr. Banks: Obviously a community is made up of individuals, but the sense of community is larger than the sum of its parts. That is why Conservative Members cannot grasp the concept.
Mr. Mans: Am I right in saying, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's vision of what society should be like is the sort that existed in this country in the late 1970s, which resulted in the winter of discontent, waste paper and rubbish not being collected and even the grave diggers going on strike?
Mr. Banks: No, because there was a capitalist, individualist society in the 1970s.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman's party was in power.
Mr. Banks: The mere fact that a Labour Government were in power does not alter the fact that it was also a capitalist society. One of the problems with the Labour party is that it still thinks that it can administer capitalism better than the capitalists. I do not believe that to be so. Socialism, for me, is not a fringe benefit of an efficient, capitalist system. Socialism for me is completely and utterly opposed to capitalism. That is where I part company with some of my colleagues. I believe in Socialism and collectivism. That is the big difference between me and Conservative Members, and, indeed, between me and some of my hon. Friends.
Ms. Abbott: Conservative Members deny the efficacy of collectivist solutions to problems, but they would be the first to argue for collectivist solutions in some areas. They do not argue that people should have their own private armies. They believe that there should be a collectivist solution to the defence of the realm. If collectivism works in defence, it ought to work in relation to litter. If Conservative Members reject collectivist solutions to the litter problem but accept them for defence, may it not be that they take the defence of the realm much more seriously than the environment and litter? Collectivism does work. There are certain areas in which collectivism is the only successful way in which to organise affairs. To look at the increasing litter menace in London, particularly in Hackney, and then to say that there is not a role for the state by means of a collectivist solution is absurd.
Mr. Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
To return to social attitudes towards litter, it does not necessarily follow that the only socially responsible societies are to be found in Socialist countries. It is far

637
more likely that they will be found in Socialist countries, but Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland are capitalist countries, where there is a much more socially responsible attitude towards street cleanliness and litter because society in those countries is much more socially and economically cohesive. There is less disparity of wealth and opportunity in Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark than one finds in this country. One does not necessarily have to live in a Socialist society, but one has to be living in a society that is a damned sight more fair and just than this society is under this Government.
Public property in this country is treated as second rate and with contempt by the Prime Minister. She dislikes anything that is public. For all I know, she might even hate public lavatories. Anything that is public is second rate and must be sold off, given away or, even worse than that, allowed to become run down. That is what has happened to far too many public services. It has to be set against her attitude, and that of the Government, towards private property. That is sacred and sacrosanct. This attitude goes right the way through our society because that is the example which has been set at the top.
Tenants on council estates are made to feel second-class citizens by a Government who put all the emphasis on the economic benefits of owner-occupation. I travel around London a great deal on public transport. People in London seem to regard buses and the train carriages as mobile litter bins. They do not consider that the trains or the streets belong to them. That is because of the philosophy promoted by the Government—from the very top—that public property is second rate. People would not drop rubbish in their own living rooms, they would not stick chewing gum on their own sofas and chairs, but they certainly do that on the Underground in London. They would not scrawl artless graffiti on the outside walls of their homes as they do in streets and on trains. They would not let their dogs crap on the carpet as they do outside the home. They do not recognise streets and public places as belonging to them and I blame the Government for that attitude.
Mr. Burns: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great reputation as a wit, but surely he is stretching the bounds of belief by trying to claim that the unfortunate habit of sticking chewing gum under the seats on public transport, dogs fouling public places and graffiti started on 3 May 1979. Regrettably, society has had to suffer those problems under Conservative and Labour Governments. I suspect that some of those problems in a more prehistoric form were suffered under Liberal Governments many decades ago.
Mr. Banks: I am not trying to suggest that in this highly sophisticated forum. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has managed to totter into the Chamber. His presence always adds something extra. A frisson goes through us all as we see him lower his bulky frame into the seat. I hope that he will make a speech, if he can prop himself up. I notice that he carries a stick and I wish him well, but I notice that it has not stopped him leaping up with an alacrity that is certainly denied slimmer and less agile Conservative Members. I welcome him to our proceedings, late though his presence is.
638
In reply to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I am not blaming the Government entirely. However, those trends have been increasing as it is all part of capitalism; but I have done that one already. All those tendencies have become worse since 1979. That is because of the philosophy of the Government and the attitude struck at No. 10 Downing street and throughout the Cabinet.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman gave very loud support to my deploring the habits of Members of Parliament. Does he attribute the disgusting habit of Labour Members to the philosophy of the Conservative Government? If that is so, how can we influence them in other matters?
Mr. Banks: I blame the Prime Minister for what happens on Labour Benches. Members of Parliament are no different from other members of society. They may be slightly madder than most, or even slightly more anti-social than many ordinary members of the public, but they are still subject to the same attitudes and influences because they are members of society. In a sense, the Prime Minister's attitude must permeate through the Labour party as well as through the Conservative party.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Banks: I shall give way for the last time. Although I am quite enjoying this, I have a feeling that other hon. Members may wish to speak.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point when he says that his colleagues in the Labour party do not have the character to maintain their Socialist way of life without being knocked off it by anyone else. As the hon. Gentleman is making so many political points, which he is quite entitled to do, I point out that the borough that he represents has had a Labour council for 60 or 70 years, yet has more litter and graffiti than almost anywhere else, except perhaps Tower Hamlets which also had a Labour council for the past 60 or 70 years, except for the past two or three years when it has had an equally bad Liberal council. The Labour council in Ealing has cut street cleansing and litter collection, but has put up the rates by 32 per cent. and has increased staff substantially in the gay and lesbian unit for homosexuals.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is well known for his antipathy towards his local council. The hon. Gentleman, who represents one of the constituencies under that council, could be of more assistance by arguing in favour of more resources for his borough to deal with many of the pressing problems that exist there rather than producing his usual anecdotes about gay and lesbian groups. When I check up on what the hon. Member says about his borough, and I always do that, I often find that his "facts" and reality do not always coincide. I suspect that was another example.
It is not down simply to the boroughs. I am talking about attitudes that affect everyone, even Labour Members. People do not consider dropping litter as a particularly heinous crime. It is part of the attitude on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) rightly attacked all hon. Members. We are not isolated from the attitudes of people outside the House of Commons. When I asked other hon. Members why they drop rubbish, one hon. Friend replied, "If I collected it up, they would probably sack the cleaner." He considered that

639
he was part of a job creation scheme trying to foster employment among cleaners. Perhaps under latter-day Tories, that is precisely the case and perhaps my hon. Friend had a far more sophisticated political attitude than I do. Perhaps he knows that, under the Government, if everyone stops dropping litter they will not encourage services and re-employ the people who were picking up the litter: they will sack them. Perhaps my hon. Friend had a point, but because of my background I could not go around dropping litter even if it were part of an extended job creation programme.
Let me say something nice about the Government—I can probably do that for the next 30 seconds or so. 1990 is to be Tidy Britain Year. I welcome that initiative. I must say to the Minister that every year should be Tidy Britain Year. However, I trust that it will not be a year of silly gimmicks such as those from the Prime Minister in the past. For example, the Prime Minister's interest in litter and the state of London streets seem to date precisely from June 1986 when she was coming back from Heathrow airport to No. 10 Downing street in her bullet-proof Daimler—she does not travel on the train—having visited Israel where she was particularly impressed by the cleanliness of the streets. It was a shame about the dead bodies on the West Bank, but the streets were nice and clean. That obviously impressed her so she decided to call in another of her initiatives.
We had that ludicrous photo-opportunity in St. James's park when specially placed, no doubt sanitised, litter was put down for the Prime Minister to spike and put into a black plastic bag which was being held by a very sullen and embarrassed-looking Secretary of State. However, he always looks sullen. If someone told him that he had won £1 million on the pools he would manage to look miserable about it. However, he looked particularly miserable and sullen and embarrassed on that ludicrous occasion. If the Prime Minister had been collecting a few choice dog turds, I might have applauded her and thought that at least she had the courage of her convictions, but very nice clean litter was put down for her to stick in a bag. It made her look extraordinarily silly, almost as silly as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, who is rising to his feet.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I have sat here for quite some time listening to the hon. Gentleman. Although I am hobbling, at least I am not at home watching the Test match and have come here to do my duty in Parliament. I have listened for quite some time to the hon. Gentleman's insults to our Prime Minister. He has forgotten that when the Prime Minister came to office she wanted to change people's attitudes. She felt that if they owned the properties in which they lived they would start to take pride in them. They would not send a card to the council if they had a draught under a door or if a cupboard would not fit; they would start to mend it themselves. They would not throw litter into their own front gardens and then phone the council to come and clear it up because, in trying to enable everyone to become a home owner, the Prime Minister was trying to build character. I like to think that it is the same character that has brought me here today.
Mr. Banks: As I have said, I welcome the hon. Gentleman. He is wise to be here rather than watching
640
England being slaughtered in the Test match. I am sure that he is here because of his civic duty rather than wanting to close his eyes to yet another English massacre.
I do not think that the Prime Minister has brought about the pride or spirit about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. As I have said, she has encouraged selfishness and greed and stress on the individual. As long as the individual is doing fine, devil take the hindmost. That is the Government's philosophy. It does not build community spirit. It makes those who are doing OK feel good, but it makes a large number of people who are casualties of the system feel that they are pariahs or that there is something wrong with them. Litter is symptomatic of the attitude that the Prime Minister has spent so much time encouraging.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is a valiant defender of the Prime Minister. I hope that sooner or later he will be suitably rewarded either with political office or some honour. He is a champion in his ability to defend the indefensible.
I was talking about 1990 and Tidy Britain Year. I trust that it will not consist of yet more ineffective initiatives and photo-opportunities for the Prime Minister and Ministers. For example, UK 2000 was an initiative launched in 1986 under the chairmanship of Richard Branson—Mr. Rubbish as he became known. That has not worked. It was launched with an enormous amount of shouting by the Prime Minister and Conservative politicians, but its litter programme has disappeared.
At the invitation of the Department of the Environment the Tidy Britain Group, formerly the Keep Britain Tidy Group, reviewed its strategy and approach in 1987. The result was a clean-90s programme launched by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in March 1988. As I have said, that was when we had the ludicrous photo-opportunity with the Prime Minister picking up litter.
The Tidy Britain Group became the sole Government agent in litter matters from April 1988. It took on a more active campaigning role. Government funding for the group increased in 1988–89 from £560,000 to £1·2 million to finance the clean-90s campaign. The funding was further increased by an announcement on 15 December last year saying that the grant would be pushed tip to £3 million for 1989–90. That is pathetic. That is a Britainwide initiative yet the Government are providing only £3 million at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bragging about the kitty being awash with money. Of course, he cannot spend any of it because of the problem that would cause for inflation and, although the figures are appalling now, they could get worse. The Chancellor could spend more of that money on providing additional resources for the Tidy Britain Group and for the initiatives that the Government keep saying they want to deal with litter.
It is noticeable that the Tidy Britain Group has been looking at the litter problems around motorway service stations and beside major trunk roads. One of the service stations it has opted to study is near Grantham. I wondered why it chose a service station near Grantham when it could have picked any service station on any motorway. Of course, even Conservative Members can grasp the reason for that. It is a gimmick with no resources behind it. It is a chance for a good photo-opportunity for the Prime Minister or Ministers and will provide a few more television slots. Ultimately, it does not amount to

641
anything. If the Government cannot be judged by actions rather than words and gimmicks, the Minister—I have a high regard for her as a person—and her colleagues cannot be serious about the problems of litter in this country.
We need a series of proposals and we need to change the law in respect of litter dropping. Police enforcement of the Litter Act 1983 has been described by the Tidy Britain Group as pathetic. In 1987 the Metropolitan police made 18 prosecutions—one for every 1,500 officers. The average fine in 1987 was £35, which is less than the cost of bringing the prosecution. The possible maximum fine available is £400. Fines as low as £5 do not encourage police officers to recognise that enforcement of the litter law is important or act as a deterrent against dropping litter. The police say that the requirement to prove intent causes difficulties.
There needs to be a strengthening of the law, and dropping litter should be an absolute offence without having to prove intent to leave it behind. It is ludicrous. Someone can drop a cigarette packet and when challenged by a police officer say that they intended to go back for it later. In that way, they have not committed a crime. That reduces the law to an absurdity and that is why niether enforcement officers nor members of the public take it seriously.
The police force's current commitment to policing by objectives and priorities may have inhibited police officers in their enforcement of the litter laws, considering that they have little priority and it is not a cost-effective task. When we complain to the police, when the London group of Labour Members of Parliament meets the Metropolitan police Commissioner, he says that he does not have the bodies to be able to do anything about it. He says, "Would you rather I reduced the number of crimes of violence, car thefts and burglaries or chased litter louts?" Of course, there is only one answer. If it means that we have to provide more resources for the police, so be it. That is what the Government should do. That would be willing the means to fulfil the ends.
It is a question of enforcement and the resources to carry it out. If the police had to pay the bill for clearing up the massive amounts of litter dropped on our streets, they might change their views on whether it is cost-effective to stop the rubbish being deposited in the first place. The best approach is to devolve the responsibility to local authorities together with responsibilities for traffic wardens, on which negotiations are currently taking place.
There has been mention of the Westminster initiative and the City of Westminster Act 1988. That gave the local authority employees power to issue fixed penalty tickets for litter offenders. In practice, some 70 to 80 employees, while engaged on their normal duties, are given that power. They have approached about 700 people in the past year. They always give the offender an opportunity to pick up the litter before issuing the ticket. Only four people have refused to pick up the litter and were issued with a ticket. One refused to pay the £10 fixed penalty and was subsequently fined £40 with £35 costs.
The scheme has not had a major impact but it may have started a change of attitude in the areas in which it operates. That is why the local authorities, the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs
642
Association have asked for the powers to be given to all local authorities. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
On the matter of enforcement, the Government must strengthen and simplify the litter laws and specify a higher minimum penalty with an absolute offence for dropping litter. They must ensure that the police are aware that enforcement of the litter laws is a priority. They must also ensure that the magistrates impose realistic fines on those convicted of littering. Also, they must give all local authorities power to enforce the litter laws.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) talked about privatisation. The Government find it easy to lay the duty of care for a clean environment on the local authorities. That is what the Secretary of State has said. At the same time, they tie hands of local authorities with legislation on competitive tendering.
I do not believe that competition will improve cleansing services. Accepting the lowest quote will not ensure clean streets, but will involve local authorities in a constant round of performance monitoring and of imposing penalties, as they have had to do in Wandsworth and Merton. When those penalties mount up to such an extent that the private company must default, the local authority will still be responsible for clearing up the streets. However, it will no longer have the resources or the work force to do the job. Placing responsibility entirely on a local authority and allowing ratepayers to take it to court is wholly misdirected. I have tried to make the case for increased resources for local authorities.
The London borough of Newham is divided by the A11 and the A13. We must tolerate the environmental pollution of hundreds of thousands of vehicles screaming through the borough. In fact, vehicles do not scream through the borough, because if hon. Members know what the A11 and A13 are like they will be aware that it is quicker to walk over the roofs of the cars rather than drive. Further problems are caused by people throwing their litter out of car windows, and their cars' exhaust fumes pollute our environment.
Commuter parking in the borough makes street cleansing more difficult. Cleaners cannot get into gulleys, which leads to the need for night and weekend cleansing. However, that involves more resources for the local authority because it demands higher wage rates and better conditions for the people who do that filthy but vital work.
I should like to make a firm proposal. All hon. Members have their own proposals, and earlier the hon. Member for Basildon suggested a good proposal. I wish him well tonight on his midnight patrol. After close examination, we now understand that his patrol will begin at 9 pm. I hope that he manages to survive. If he does not, as Basildon is a marginal seat another Labour Member of Parliament will be elected. I shall not tell any of my friends in the east end to hang around in Basildon from 9 pm onwards, but at least the hon. Member for Basildon has some pride in his local community. I recommend the hon. Member for Basildon's attitude to his local authority to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, because if he was as supportive of his local authority as the hon. Member for Basildon is of his council, Ealing would be a much nicer place to live.
Mr. Harry Greenway: If I supported my local authority I should be supporting cuts in refuse collection and street

643
cleansing. My duty is to oppose such cuts and achieve proper cleaning of our streets to get rid of the epidemic of rats and litter.
Mr. Banks: Since 1983, I have never heard the hon. Gentleman say a nice word about his borough, and he should examine his conscience carefully in that regard. He should argue for more resources for the London borough of Ealing, instead of continually asking for it to be rate capped. He should take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Basildon.
I should like the London borough of Newham and other areas to have street wardens, who could deal with the range of street problems such as illegal parking, litter, unlicensed vehicles, and owners who allow their dogs to foul streets and paths. They should have the power to enforce socially responsible attitudes on our streets. However, that would deal only with the symptoms of the problem; its core goes deep into the philosophy of this Government and the social attitudes that they encourage. Those attitudes will not change until the Government change.
All shops should be required by law to provide bins outside their premises. The hon. Member for Chelmsford mentioned cash dispensers. The Midland bank has installed a cash dispenser at Forest Gate that provides receipts. People who use it leave their receipts all over the ground. The Midland bank should be required to put a litter bin immediately under its cash dispenser. It certainly makes enough money from the overdraft that I have with it to provide bins below cash dispensers throughout the country. Indeed, it could probably finance the cost of every bin from my overdraft.
Fast food chains should be required to collect litter within a quarter mile radius of their shops. Most people who use such shops dump their litter within 400 yd of the shop. McDonalds, Wimpy, Kentucky Fried Chicken and other such shops that purvey fairly disgusting food should collect litter within a quarter mile radius of their shops.
We cannot deal with the problems of litter by gimmick or exhortation, even if the gimmick and exhortation emanate from 10 Downing street. We need legal remedies such as those that I have specified and investment in infrastructure and cleansing services. Above all, if we are to achieve a long-term solution to litter and mess in our streets, we need a change in social attitudes. We need to restore pride in public ownership and the community, which we will never get from the Prime Minister or the Government. However, we certainly shall get it from a Socialist Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
12.26 pm
Mr. Irvine Patnick: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). What he lacks in content he makes up for in noise.
I did not expect my motion to be called today as originally it was number three in the ballot. Although, fortunately, my motion now appears second on the Order Paper, I am aware, from my 20 years of opposition in Sheffield and on South Yorkshire county council, that people such as myself are unable to control time. I note that Opposition Members keep entering the Chamber and preparing to make speeches.
644
I am sad to see that no other hon. Members representing Sheffield constituencies are present to discuss regeneration of Sheffield.
Mr. Tony Banks: They knew that the debate would not be reached.
Mr. Patnick: We know not yet; miracles have happened before.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West, in his own inimitable manner, attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who is a thin, shy, unassuming and quiet person. He was upset by the attacks made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, and on his behalf I spring to his defence. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West is a man of few words, which are often spoken at great length. His attacks on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment were not only in bad taste but were unwarranted, and I do not understand why he had to make them. There is plenty of scope for debate on litter without a need to make personal attacks.
On 1 November 1988, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister congratulated the Keep Britain Tidy efforts and said that she was ready to use the law. She said that if necessary, individuals would be forced to take responsibility for the areas immediately in front of their premises. My right hon. Friend called for a new clean-up campaign which should be supported actively by every individual. She said:
"There could be a major improvement in the appearance of our towns and cities if people did not throw down litter".—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 820.]
She said that if litter were thrown down, people should pick it up.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West nearly fooled me. I thought that he had become the invisible man, but he had merely moved around the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman said that we should use the arm of the law and referred to the police. I envisage a new arm of law enforcement, similar to the lollipop ladies and gentlemen, which would have a specific responsibility to deal with litter and graffiti. Although those who throw litter and spray graffitti on the walls are breaking the law, we should not use the police to deal with them. It is wrong, too, that traffic wardens are responsible to the police, although they deal with road traffic offences. I believe that an establishment within the bodies involved in law enforcement could be created to ensure that those who drop litter, spray paint on walls and put up posters illegally feel the force of the law.
The Tube, railway and bus stations, the airports and railway carriages are natural and national litter magnets. It is odd that the cleanest spots in London are the platforms at Westminster Tube station. Spain, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred, is litter-strewn. Footpaths are paved for only part of their length. The most litter-strewn country that I have ever seen is Gibraltar.
Litter is a phenomenon that I have come to know. When I was a member of Sheffield city council, it was normal for members to throw all the papers that they did not need on the floor. When I asked why, I was told that if the papers were left on the desks, the cleaners would put them into the members' lockers, so the next time the members opened them, they would see all the papers that

645
they wanted disposed of. The Sheffield city council chamber is a quaint place in which to work. It now has an ample number of litter baskets.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Newham, Noth-West pointed out, there is nowhere in the Chamber to put papers, save for the slots in front of the Benches. It is normal for Members to throw their papers on the Floor. Those who look into the Chamber when television is with us will be able to see the way in which we generate paper and what we do with it. We must set an example. Something needs to be done about the paper bombardment. Recently, I was a member of the Committee on the local Government and Housing Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) had a good idea. He placed a large paper sack at the back of the Committee room, into which we were able to throw all our waste paper.
The battle against litter is never-ending. Litter reflects a lack of civic pride and says more about a place than any publicity machine. Residents require clean streets and pavements, grass verges to be cut and cars not to be parked on grass verges or pavements. The first step in dereliction is the growth of litter, which is followed by the growth of graffiti, followed by fly-posting.
Sheffield, where I have lived all my life and which I represent, built an incinerator to burn rubbish at Bernard road in Sheffield. The idea was that the heat produced would be used to give some local council dwellings hot water and central heating. In the mess that resulted from the Local Government Act 1972—which I accept was introduced by my Government—when better was thought to be greater, the monster of the South Yorkshire county council was set up. One stupidity was that Sheffield city council collected the waste and South Yorkshire county council disposed of it. The incinerator at Bernard road no longer belonged to Sheffield city council but belonged to South Yorkshire county council. The waste was collected by the city council, taken to the county council for disposal, the county council burnt it and produced heat. It was not Sheffield city council's heat; it had to be sold to it. It was nonsense. We were generating rubbish, having the rubbish collected and taking the rubbish to the incinerator, but it was burnt there and we had to buy the heat from the power station. If ever Topsy ruled and if ever bureaucracy went mad, that was an example, and if there was ever a reason for getting rid of the metropolitan county councils, that was a good reason, if not the only one.
In South Yorkshire, we had a catchment area of 1·million people, as opposed to the 600,000-odd in Sheffield. We did not manufacture enough waste. There was not sufficient rubbish for the power station to burn. Sadly, an alteration had to be made at times to the incinerator to allow it to generate heat and give hot water in periods when rubbish was not available throughout the county. Imagine the hoo-ha when the huge district heating system broke down. I subscribe to the theory that the larger and more complicated something is, the greater the likelihood of it going wrong. Sure enough, the system used to go wrong and the problems had to be seen to be believed. There was a shortage of rubbish despite the increase in packaging.
646
When one buys a shirt from one of the major stores, one has to remove the pins, the collar stiffeners, the lovely little piece of plastic in the front, the pieces of cardboard and, depending on how up-market or down-market the shirt is, a lovely piece of tissue paper. There is always a plastic bag surrounding all the other packaging. If the shirt is really up-market, it will be inside a box that has to be thrown away. I have no shares in Marks and Spencer, but I have seen sweaters hanging up there with only a little label with the size printed on it. That is a good step forward. However, despite the increase in packaging, we were short of rubbish to burn in South Yorkshire.
Sheffield also uses a combined heat and power and recycling process. It was pioneered in Sheffield and my hon. Friend the Minister was there recently to open the project. We build housing away from the incinerators and disposal areas because nobody wants to be near an industrial area, and I agree with that. None the less, industry is a source of power. We can all remember the cooling towers that seemed to give off sufficient heat. Surely there must be some way to use that heat. Sheffield has pioneered that project, among others.
As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), litter, fly-posting and graffiti are one and the same problem and when combined with vandalism, the decline of our area begins.
I listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West when he was talking about the piece of paper that comes out when one goes to a cash dispenser. Some banks give a choice about whether one wants a printed receipt. Banks could—and I am not referring to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—take action to eliminate that piece of paper. I am sure that few people know where to put the piece of paper when they take it out of the machine. I have heard that only multi-millionaires do not have to worry about money. Most of us when we take money out of a cash dispenser are pleased when something comes out and most cross when there is nothing there. We are shocked when the machine shows our balance. I have said, "Oh God", a number of times when I have read the balance figure. We could be positive and ask banks to get rid of those slips of paper.
Posters are stuck on anything which does not move: shop windows, walls, telephone kiosks and any bit of street furniture. Fly-posting brings down the tone of an area. It is highly likely that the perpetrators of these blemishes on the landscape are totally unaware of their contravention of the law and the risk of prosecution. Like general litterers, fly-posters leave their trademark. They probably would not do so if they had even a basic knowledge of the law, they may have a good reason for believing that nothing drastic will happen to them if they flout the law.
Many authorities take great pride in the smart appearance of their area. However, it must be admitted that vast areas have some increasingly tatty and uncared for parts, and fly-posting contributes a great deal to that. Usually, the advertisements give sufficient detail to track down those who have stuck them up.
My understanding of the law is that the person putting up the poster is the one who is prosecuted. That is wrong; I believe that the advertisers should be stopped from fly-posting. We have all seen the posters advertising anything from pop concerts and records to political fringe party meetings. Those posters are stuck on telephone kiosks and any piece of street furniture which does not

647
move. I have even seen them on traffic lights, nailed to telegraph poles and put around lamp stands. Something should be done about that.
I do not wish to advocate legal action on a large scale, but warnings by letter of the consequences of further breaches of the law to the more obvious and persistent offenders, together with the help of local newspapers, might do the trick. There is an increasing number of environmental interest groups. The deterioration of the urban and, to a lesser degree, the rural scene, by litter of all types, including fly-posting, is the subject of much complaint. Extensive powers have already been given to public bodies to tackle fly-posting. There is sufficient legislation to do so, but there must be a willingness to take action.
An article in The Times in 1987 said that a bus company was considering suing vandals who had caused £2 million worth of damage to its vehicles with spray cans. Such actions of vandalism are the worst type. Stiffer sentences were urged in an article on graffiti vandals which appeared in a publication in Sheffield more than a year ago, on 10 June 1988. It said that the battle against graffiti was costing the council £250,000 per year.
Something must be done about the subways, which are a part of town and city life. They should be for traffic, not people. Pedestrian subways are a breeding ground for litter, graffiti, fly-posting and vandalism. They should be closed, and alternative ways found to enable people to go about their daily business. The underpass between King's Cross and St. Pancras, an area I know well, is not a nice place, late at night, but it is the only way to cross that area. There are subways in Sheffield permeated by a similar atmosphere.
One feature I have noticed since becoming a Member of Parliament and travelling to London is the fly-tipping and tipping of waste that takes place in London on roadsides, near roundabouts and underneath motorways. All sorts of places seem to be a magnet for people who want to get rid of a load of rubbish. If they do so, they are not only committing a prosecutable offence but damaging the environment.
I live next to countryside in Sheffield and I see many respectable people wheeling barrows full of clippings and rubbish to tip in the beautiful bluebell woods, which are one of Sheffield's features. They would not leave a pile of rubbish on their own carpet, yet they are prepared to leave it on the carpet which belongs to everyone, of grass and the natural environment.
As I explained, I was a leading member of the opposition in Sheffield council. Sheffield has some quite innovative schemes in place. For example, we have a collection scheme for garden refuse and large, strong plastic sacks are provided. We also have an abandoned car collection scheme, which I greatly admire. One of the greatest things that Sheffield has done in the fight against litter and pollution was to be among the first cities to enforce the clean air legislation. That cost a lot of money. Everyone used to think of Sheffield as a blackened city but now it is clean and attractive. One of our great problems is created by starlings, pigeons and now, seagulls, which seem suddenly to have found that the city is better than their normal habitat.
Sheffield also has a furniture collection scheme. One can ring up and a van or lorry will arrive on which one can load one's rubbish. Like other cities, we have bottle banks. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West
648
and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that we should reimpose a deposit system for bottles. At the moment, we put bottles in bins or bags and they add to the volume of waste. It is a waste of our natural resources to have a firm churning out bottles only for them to be thrown away. That does not seem sensible. Bottle banks should be placed outside large stores. They should be obliged to provide such a facility. Many stores are into the environment. As part of that environmental kick they could provide bottle banks. Some stores put waste paper bins outside. There is a branch of McDonald's in Victoria, not far from where I live. McDonald's is one of the firms that employs people to pick up the litter round their premises and sweep the pavements. The larger stores have an obligation to do something to help people dispose of bottles. It would be progress indeed if companies were prepared to do that.
I thoroughly enjoy reading newspapers but they are the bane of my life. My late father used to keep newspapers around so that eventually one could not get near him without pulling a newspaper away. I inherited that tendency. It was in my genes. I discovered that I was doing it at home. My wife used to throw the papers in the bin and I could be seen at midnight with a torch searching for a newspaper that I considered vital. It was a beautiful sight. I always found the wrong newspaper and, in any case, it was never as important as it seemed. I now realise that following in my father's footsteps and hoarding newspapers in not a way forward. In Sheffield I take about four newspapers a day. We have to do something with them. We can burn them, or throw them in the bin, which means that they will be tipped but there seems to be no collection service. We have bottle banks so why do we not have newspaper banks in which to throw newspaper for recycling?
As I said earlier, we do not use our resources very well. We should give people an incentive to take their litter to a given point in the fear that they will pay a penalty if they do not. The police have far too much to do in maintaining law and order on the large scale, but although litter offences may be minor offences they can cause great upset. We should find a way of imposing a penalty on those who leave litter. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that we do not want a £10 or a £5 fine, but we could have an on-the-spot fine.
Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friend has been telling us some of Sheffield's success stories. He may be pleased to hear that in one of the villages in my constituency we have a road cleaner called Raymond Watkins. He is such a good road cleaner that he will do anything at any hour of the day to keep the village clean. Such is his reputation that people no longer throw rubbish away because they know that poor old Raymond will have to deal with it. The local authority has suggested that Raymond Watkins should move to another place, and 300 people have signed a petition pleading with it not to move him.
We should not forget that much can be achieved by example. It is a question of attitude, although we tend to forget that. It is terribly important that we should set a good example at home and at school.
Mr. Patnick: I accept what my hon. Friend says about street cleaners taking pride in their work. I usually meet one in the mornings because his beat is close to where I collect some of my four daily newspapers. He is always

649
smiling and happy. There is a very good fish and chip shop near where I live, but unfortunately the birds take the fish and chip wrappings out of the bins and strew them over the pavements. That street cleaner's first job is to clear up the mess left by those birds.
I recently wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office asking whether anything could be done about fly-posting. It appears that, as ever, there is a strong law on that, but no one wants to enforce it. Under section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 any advertisement must receive either the deemed or the express consent of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. A condition of that consent is that before any advertisement is displayed, the permission of the owner of the site must be obtained. We all know that those who put up fly posters do not bother to do that. If they see a nice stretch of wall, a shop window boarded-up or a "To Let" sign, they stick their posters all over it. It is cumulative, because someone else then puts his poster over that poster and then another person puts another one over that. It looks so tatty. Sheffield city council actually employs men with steam guns—they are masked and look as though they come from Mars—to remove fly posters.
Believe it or not, Sheffield city council leases premises to the very people who put up fly posters. If there is to be a concert in council-owned premises and fly posters advertising that concert are put up, the council should take action against those who perpetrate that crime on the environment. Unfortunately, that just does not happen. It is surely not difficult to discover who is running the concert, who is appearing, where one can buy tickets and so on.
There are statutory fines for offenders who paint graffiti on walls. One of the problems with graffiti, especially that done with spray paint cans, is that there does not appear to be any way of obliterating the paint once it has been sprayed on. Some of that graffiti is not only racist, it is obscene. Some of it is just childish in the extreme. It makes me wonder what sort of intelligent person uses a spray can. Some of the graffiti appears to be quite professional.
Many hon. Members have said that the people who use spray cans to write graffiti are artists. As one comes by train to London one sees graffiti on the walls of various buildings, but graffiti is another sin or crime against the environment. We need graffiti-proof paint. One thing that I have noticed since I have been a Member of the House is that Tube trains have had to have graffiti removed from them. I do not know which is worse, graffiti or the marks that remain when it is removed. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a spray-paint-proof treatment for railway train carriages. Somebody could say, "The next thing that they will do is spray-paint the walls." That is not where it is done. It is obviously done in sidings where trains are parked.
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that
"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage"—
It is always hard when one reads legal expressions; they never make sense except to lawyers—
"any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
650
In my language, it is an offence to damage somebody else's property. When an hon. Member puts down a resolution in the House, it needs either a semicolon or a colon to make it read.
The maximum sentence, covering a wide range of activities, is 10 years' imprisonment, if the offender is convicted on indictment—that is, after a trial by judge and jury in a Crown court rather than before a magistrate. Graffiti writing will invariably be regarded as one of the less serious forms of criminal damage, and offenders are likely to be dealt with by a magistrate.
The Public Order Act 1986 also covers several relevant offences. Graffiti that is likely or intended to stir up racial hatred may render the writer liable to prosecution under section 18 of the Act. The Attorney-General's consent is required before proceedings for an offence under that section can be brought. The maximum penalty for a person convicted on indictment is two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. If the person is convicted summarily by a magistrate, the maximum penalty is six months, a fine or both. There is little case law on either of those provisions, but it seems likely that, in certain circumstances, they extend to graffiti writers.
Obviously, the police will take the first steps in the process leading to trial. The new enforcement arm that I continue to advocate should be responsible for that. Whether an offender is reported, arrested or merely cautioned is a discretionary matter for the police officers concerned. When the process is started, it is for the Crown prosecution service to decide to bring charges. If it decides to charge someone, it will also choose the offence with which that person is to be charged. The Crown prosecution service examines two sets of criteria—evidential sufficiency and public interest—as the Crown prosecutors' code explains.
If a person is tried and convicted of criminal damage or of an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, a variety of penalties will be available within the statutory maximum. The Home Office has provided a guide book summarising the penalties for offenders in different age groups.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 replaces youth custody and detention centre orders with unified custodial sentences. Parents can be ordered to pay any fines, costs or compensatory orders imposed on their children, and the Act extends that provision to fines imposed when juveniles breach supervision or community service orders.
Vandalism is a key factor in parliamentary debates on the subject of litter. There are discussions with people working in Government Departments, local authorities, the police and the academic world, but there has been little if any systematic research into vandalism nationally, so my remarks illustrate only one small part of the subject. It is important not to get vandalism out of proportion. Although a great deal of damage is done to property such as buses, trains and telephone kiosks, it is not really vandalism—in the sense that public telephones, for example are not wrenched from their mountings and thrown away.
I shall bear in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about the right housing policies being axiomatic in solving many problems. The current trend of devising more humane designs and layouts will help, particularly if special attention is paid to eliminating features known to encourage vandalism.
The move away from smaller housing units was started in the 1960s by a Conservative Government, even though

651
the shortcomings of such property were capable of being overcome. In those days it was thought that plumbing was the yardstick by which the fitness of a house should be measured. The criteria were an inside toilet, hot water and a bathroom, as well as a ventilated food cupboard. The layout of rooms was another factor. Many is the time that I have appeared either at a public inquiry in connection with a compulsory purchase or clearance order to decide on the fitness of certain housing. However, there is now a move back to smaller houses and away from flats, and there is increasing recognition among local authorities that there is a need for private housing. Nevertheless, there are certain difficult policy areas where a firm steer by central Government would be useful. They include the importance of maintenance as opposed to new building.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise from listening to the hon. Gentleman that litter covers a multitude of sins, but his present remarks are wide of the motion.
Mr. Patnick: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Litter is more than just a question of the indiscriminate throwing away of rubbish. It is also about the way in which people live. It has to do, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth with the way that people are brought up. The blind spots often occur at semi-public spaces on housing estates. Litter can be not only pieces of paper but beds and furniture. When I visited Vauxhall for the recent by-election, I saw dumped there beds, settees and bags of rubbish, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who accompanied me. We saw also black plastic sacks that had not been collected by the local authority.
Litter accumulates even in unoccupied buildings; people seem to break in and put it there. There is also the rubbish that is put through letter boxes. When householders have gone away, free newspapers and so forth are still delivered. In derelict areas that are being redeveloped or rehabilitated, we must ensure that what remains is tidied up. Old retaining walls, for instance, are breeding grounds for litter and graffiti, and old fireplaces and bathroom suites are also thrown on to vacant land.
We must keep the streets clean and tidy. A street should not look its worst immediately after the dustmen have called. More provision must be made for the disposal of household rubbish, and rubble should not be left lying around building sites. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made the important point that lorries are loaded with rubbish that does not seem to be fastened down or covered with a net. It blows all over the street, with the driver unaware of what is happening.
I welcome the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) to the Opposition Front Bench, where I hope she spends many a happy year.
Maintenance is vital, and we must ensure that the councils catch up with the problem. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for giving us the opportunity to debate it. We must persevere. We also have a duty to set an example. The Benches today are rather a pleasant sight without the litter that we see at 2 or 3 am.
Litter was one of the subjects that I wanted to raise when I first came to the House, and I hope that my hon.
652
Friend the Minister will tell us that a new enforcement officer—a "litter lady" or "litter-pop man"—can be appointed to deal with the first stage in prosecutions and to make people aware of the penalties.
1.17 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) was something of an occasion. He spoke for 41 minutes. As he told us at the outset, the hon. Gentleman has second place on the Order Paper with a subject of his own—Sheffield—and I am rather pleased that he has spoken at such length, because I, as a neighbour of Sheffield, cannot now be accused of attempting to stop him speaking. Although he is obviously interested in the subject of litter, I found it interesting that he should make it more difficult for himself to speak in a later debate.
Mr. Patnick: It was pretty obvious to me that, with so few Opposition Members present, the Opposition would not allow an opportunity for the second debate
Mr. Barnes: As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, we have yet to see what happens. I understand his frustration, however. Last week I drew second place for a debate on the poll tax but did not get the opportunity to speak, and last Friday a Scottish Member had the same experience with a debate on the same subject.
Another interesting feature of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the number of references that he made to Sheffield. He mentioned bottle banks, patrols and other services. I had the feeling that he was beginning to miss Sheffield very much. Perhaps he has discovered that the council is not as obnoxious as he sometimes claimed when he was leader of the opposition there, and has decided it is more fruitful to be involved in local politics. I hope that he will have that opportunity again after the next general election.
I understand that advances have already been made by the district council into the Hallam area. Strangely enough, the hon. Member for Hallam is waxing lyrical about Sheffield council, although I, as a member of the same political party that runs Sheffield, object to a number of things that the council is doing, not least its plans to extend its boundaries and take over the northern part of my constituency. If I survive the next general election, that will make me a Member of Parliament for a Sheffield constituency. Therefore, if we had the second debate on the Order Paper, a Member of Parliament would be here to respond to points made by the hon. Member for Hallam.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct one statement that he made. In a long speech, it is difficult to be as precise as one would wish, but he referred to graffiti connected with racism and suggested that there was much worse graffiti than that, including obscenities. I believe that racism is the worst possible type of obscenity. I hope that the hon. Member for Hallam agrees with me.
The procedures of the House are very strange. Yesterday, I tried desperately to speak in the debates on Northern Ireland, especially in the debate about direct rule. I sat patiently waiting to speak but was unable even to intervene during the Minister's speech. Today, I came to listen to a debate on litter and found that a big ideological battle was going on, allowing hon. Members to refer to many concerns about the direction of party politics. Many

653
of us who object to the characteristics of an increasingly crass, capitalist society believe that litter is the mark of a capitalist society and that if we move in a different political direction we shall solve the litter problem and other problems that are associated with it.
I intend, therefore, to refer to issues that might be considered to be of an ideological nature, just as I had intended to do yesterday in the debates on Northern Ireland. It is time that the ideological case for democracy and Socialism was put forward at all opportunities, just as Conservative Members put forward the ideological case for the enterprise culture at every opportunity. Democracy and Socialism would be able to tackle many of the problems that we face.
Associated problems connected with litter are dog mess, noise, lack of care for one's neighbours, queue jumping and other anti-social activities. The throwing around of rubbish adds to the nuisance. Many of the problems were referred to by the hon. Member for Hallam, but he provided no analysis. Therefore, the earlier ideological debate vanished. A much more pragmatic view was put forward by the hon. Gentleman, and he drew considerably on Sheffield council's experience.
A sea change in social attitudes is needed. During the war, and in post-war Britain, there was a much more collectivist response by people to litter, noise and anti-social activities. People believed that it was their public duty to behave in a reasonable and decent manner towards their neighbours. That attitude is breaking down, though it has not broken down entirely. Many people still behave in a perfectly reasonable and decent way. If it were not for that, there would be nothing for Socialists and democrats to build upon and we would be in a desperate situation. The whole basis of an enterprise culture is that people should advance themselves, live their own lives and follow their individual concerns without bothering about anyone else. That means that people's lives are affected by others who are simply acting selfishly. We have to revert to the position that came out of war-time experiences and was built upon in the post-war consensus but is now seriously under attack.
That is not to say that everything is down to the Prime Minister and everything is a consequence of Thatcherism. She did not build a grasping capitalist society or create the get-rich-quick mentality. That already existed. She has simply unleashed the political expression of that which was already there in the economic and social nature of society.
In earlier times, many Conservatives believed in the values of civic duty and responsibility. It appears in some of the older Conservative Members who still reflect the traditional Conservative values, but it is beginning to disappear. Conservatives such as Disraeli felt that there should be training and education which, although it was elitist, meant that the leaders that it produced would have some responsibility towards the rest of society and would try to spread the values of civic duty and responsibility throughout society. The Macmillan set of values has bitten the dust and the crudest form of free-enterprise advocacy imaginable has developed in Britain. It was rife in certain Right-wing circles in Europe and has always existed in America. American society is not particularly adept at handling problems such as litter and noise. It is an aggressive, self-assertive attitude in which people say,
654
"Give me my rights and don't give anyone else theirs." It is asserting itself in Britain and has been mentioned by several Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Obviously, he has a different response to such problems.
Personal responsibility is a matter of arguing with people—not just lecturing them and telling them that they should behave and respond in a certain way or they will become totally disgusting. It may be that the law needs to be changed, as has been suggested. We need a sea change in attitudes that currently reflect the commercialised values that have bounded forth from the United States of America to be grabbed by political forces in the Conservative party. There has been a coup, those attitudes have taken over and the old guard has disappeared. All that needs to be changed dramatically as it is based on the silliest notions of human behaviour, assuming that people are out for what they can grasp for themselves and must be considered in terms of their competitiveness and that the best of all worlds would be to have a regulatory system in politics, economics and social affairs, although it would retain the existing low levels of behaviour. It assumes that people are incapable of co-operating and working together and assisting each other, yet those qualities come to the fore in a crisis, difficulty and disaster. We need to nurture those attitudes and responsibilities.
We need to get rid of the Government and advance in an entirely different direction so that Socialist and democratic values can be linked together. Socialism without democracy becomes bureaucratic abuse such as the current nonsense in China and is highly dangerous. Democracy without Socialism is what we have in Britain and although it has advantages over the dictatorial regime, is a low-level, sham philosophy that does not try to raise anyone's horizons or get them to behave responsibly towards the needs of others and seek to assist them, as is illustrated by the mess and corruption that exists in economics and is reflected in problems such as litter which is associated with economic issues.
Everything our society produces has an inbuilt obsolescence. The hon. Member for Hallam talked about shopping for a shirt. As he said, one does not buy only a shirt because it comes with all sorts of status symbols, pins, bags and so on. That unnecessary rubbish has to be dumped. If society is already uncaring and all that unnecessary rubbish is forced on it, the rubbish will not be disposed of correctly.
That occurs throughout our society. For example, I will be catching the train later to travel to Sheffield. Having been busy in the House one may be in need for sustenance during the journey. The only thing one can obtain on trains is plastic cups of coffee. There is now a new procedure whereby one plastic cup is placed inside another. Sugar is provided in a packet, milk comes in a container and one is given a disposable spoon. Therefore, simply having a cusp of coffee generates a great deal of rubbish.
I will probably need a rubbishy microwaved cheeseburger, which will be served in a container. If I want sandwiches as well, all sorts of mess will come from the wrappings. Within a short time my table will be covered with rubbish.
Last weekend, following a debate in the House on coal mining subsidence, I travelled back on the train to Sheffield with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). We had a whole host of material on the table

655
before us. We intended to dispose of it correctly because we are responsible, but before we had an opportunity to do so, somebody passed by, looked at us and said, "Thatcherite thugs." That is what we were considered to be in today's society. We are part of society because we have to live within it. That is why, when Socialism is achieved, Socialists will be a lost generation. We will have been built on past generations. Socialism is for the future. We must begin to build on our values and transcend some of the inadequacies of our behaviour.
The hon. Member for Hallam also mentioned newspapers. When one buys a newspaper it is full of material that one does not want. It is all associated with advertising and commercialisation. It is entirely unnecessary. One has to sort out the interesting bits. Therefore, newspapers bought on trains or while travelling generally may finish up on the streets rather than in rubbish bins.
Councils face great problems in collecting rubbish because of the lack of resources. Often, socially responsible people who wish to place their rubbish in bins find that it is impossible to do so because the bins are overflowing. Such people then have to be additionally responsible and buy more rubbish bins, or another plastic bag in which to put their debris and take it home to place in their dustbin. However, that cannot be done if the dustbin is already overflowing from rubbish collected on previous occasions.
Litter reveals to me some of the massive and serious problems that exist within our society. We leave local authorities to collect rubbish. Local authorities have been hammered and bashed by the Minister and the Department for the Environment. The Government have passed 50 measures directed against local authorities since 1979 and have hampered their tackling problems such as litter. I could mention other problems that have been created by legislation, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order.
The poll tax will increase the financial problems of local authorities and will cause more mess and rubbish on our streets. Private interests will be encouraged to tender for cleansing services, but they will be interested not in refuse collection but in increasing profits. The contracts that they will sign will probably be so lengthy and detailed that they will contribute to the litter and rubbish that is thrown around.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) will mention unnecessary packaging materials. Hon. Members receive much correspondence, much of which calls for a reply. The Halifax building society sent hon. Members a big glossy publication. Most hon. Members threw it straight into the wastepaper basket because they did not have time to read all the nonsense contained in it. Probably only hon. Members who have a particular interest in the subject read it.
Some controls must be placed on what is sent to people and we must increasingly use recycled material. The amount of rubbish and waste material that is thrown away in the House is criminal. The House is only one institution in this country and if commerce is taken into account the amount of rubbish that is thrown away could be multiplied. Fax machines and new technology will not contain or control the problem of litter but will lead to more paper and rubbish and many difficulties.
We need a sea change in our attitudes. Such a change is beginning. The Prime Minister is taking action to control litter. In St James's Park she was involved in a
656
charade in which some sanitised litter was thrown down for her to pick up. The consequences of the sudden change in her attitude to litter will be the same as the consequences of her change to green politics. Her lack of answers on green policies led to the advance of the Labour party and the Green party. Perhaps someone should set themselves up as a litter control party, or perhaps parties should include a litter policy in their manifestos. They will find a ready response in society to such policies.
An individual cannot control litter, but collectively we can begin to transform and change our society. At the next general election, it must be clearly seen that the Labour party has policies to deal with social problems. I hope that Conservative Members will act to undermine the nonsense that is being put about by their party.
1.28 pm
Ms. Diane Abbott: I am proud to represent the constituency of Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. Hackney has much of which to be proud—the energy and self-organisation of the people and the extent to which many colours and creeds live happily together. Last weekend, the Hackney show, which is the equivalent of a village fair, took place on Hackney downs. It was a happy event, with the young and old, people of all colours and creeds, enjoying themselves in the sunshine. It showed the best of Hackney, but rubbish and litter are serious problems which are a blight on the borough.
I should like to outline what the Government should do. There are many specific rubbish problems in Hackney. Two famous markets, Petticoat lane and Ridley road, draw people from all over London. They are marvellous places to visit, but they generate a lot of rubbish. In common with the rest of London, Hackney has many problems because of commercial rubbish, especially from shops. Not all of the 10,000 shops in Hackney make sufficient arrangements to dispose of their rubbish and not all are willing to pay the council to take it away. Only 3,000 have a contract with the council to take rubbish away, so 7,000 shops are putting out their rubbish and, presumably, waiting for the fairies to take it away. The shops put their rubbish in black bags which are placed on the pavement. They burst or are mauled by dogs and the rubbish is scattered all over the pavement. There is a problem also because of irresponsible parents whose children drop their sweet papers, cigarette packs and crisp packets. We need to encourage a more responsible attitude among the old and the young, especially children, towards dropping litter.
Another problem is the menace of stray dogs and dogs that are not on a leash in public. Like many Opposition Members and some Conservative Members, I would support a dog registration scheme in line with the proposals of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That scheme would lead to a more responsible attitude by dog owners and reduce the number of dogs roaming the streets, thereby decreasing the amount of dog dirt on the pavements, which is a health risk as well as unsightly. It would reduce the number of strays that tear up the black plastic bags of rubbish.
The efforts of planners have contributed to Hackney's rubbish problems. Like many other inner-city areas, Hackney has several estates laid out in such a way that they provide communal areas for which no one in

657
particular has responsibility. Whether they are patches of grass in the centre of estates, walkways or landings in tower blocks, they tend to collect rubbish. The old terraces may have been slums, but they had a certain spirit and people took responsibility for their front doorstep and bit of pavement. Soulless slab blocks as a result of soulless planning have replaced the slum terraces, and people do not take responsibility for the common areas, where rubbish collects.
The consumer society causes rubbish in Hackney, too. In the past decade we have seen the explosion in the consumption of take-away food—for example, hamburgers and kebabs—in their throw-away containers. They generate an enormous amount of rubbish in Hackney and all over Britain.
Rubbish is a serious problem in Hackney, for the reasons that I have outlined. At this time of the year, when the sun is shining and the blossom is on trees, the rubbish is a particular eyesore. In many ways, Hackney is a gay, vibrant and delightful place to be. Many people have written to me about the rubbish on the streets. Certain roads have terrible problems with rubbish, especially Gunton road, Shakespeare walk, Church walk and Stoke Newington high street. It is a blight and an eyesore which is making people angry.
Hackney council is well aware of people's feelings about rubbish and litter and it is doing all that it can. It is in the process of introducing some changes that it hopes may improve matters. It is trying to introduce night collections of rubbish as well as the ordinary day-time collections. Rubbish collectors will collect rubbish at night so, it is hoped, we shall wake up in the morning to a clean and sparkling borough. The council will be tougher with shopkeepers who do not make proper arrangements for the disposal of their rubbish and who are not prepared to enter into contracts with the council for disposal. The council is trying to raise the morale of its work force generally and to make the public aware of when rubbish is supposed to be collected, so if it is not collected at the correct time, the public have a number they can ring to compalin. The council is doing all that it can to deliver what the people of Hackney want, but the council cannot do everything by itself. It is fighting the trend in society, as I have said.
We face specific problems in the borough. Although all in the borough who are concerned about rubbish—of whom I am one—urge the council to continue with all it is doing and to try even harder in the future, there is no doubt that we must look to the Government eventually. What are they going to do about rubbish, litter and the environment in the inner cities, especially in boroughs such as Hackney? We do not want Britain to become like cities in America, such as New York, where the inner cities are no-go areas, sewers and dumps and the divide between the haves and have-nots becomes impossibly great? I am happy to live in a mixed community such as Hackney, and I want it to remain a mixed community where people are happy to live and to bring up their children side by side.
What can the Government do? First and foremost, if the Government are serious about rubbish, litter and, above all, the environment, they must provide local authorities with the resources to deal with the problem. They must give the resources to provide enough street
658
sweepers, to employ enough dustmen, to buy the most up-to-date cleaning, sweeping and rubbish collecting equipment and to allow communal skips and special bins for shops to be made easily available. They must provide more resources so that boroughs such as Hackney can do all that they want in clearing up litter.
The Government must change their mind on the dog registration scheme. An effective system of dog registration would encourage dog owners to be more responsible and would do much to cure the problem of dogs roaming the streets. There would be less mess on pavements and fewer dogs tearing open black bags full of rubbish and scattering the contents on the streets. The Government should also consider whether we need harsher penalties for shopkeepers who do not take seriously their responsibility to dispose of rubbish. We need more resources for environmental health so that inspectors can go round to inspect shops.
Above all, we need a change in attitude by the Government. When we have a Government who despise the public sector, who say that anything done by the private sector is better simply by virtue of the fact that it is done by the private sector and who are determined to see the public sector wither away, services that can only be carried out collectively, such as keeping clean the streets of inner cities, are bound to suffer. A Government who despise the public sector will neglect the staff and starve the sector of money. We have seen the results in the environment of London, especially in the rubbish problem. It does no good for the Prime Minister to carry out publicity stunts and to be photographed picking up rubbish in the street. What is needed is a real commitment by the Government, and more resources for local authorities for their cleansing departments and environmental health departments. We also need to consider legislation on dogs, and on shop keepers in connection with what they do with their rubbish. We need to consider the penalties that can be enforced in dealing with people who drop litter. We need legislation, but also money. The Government must put money where their mouth is to tackle the problem of rubbish.
I am grateful to have been able to bring to the attention of the House the important issue of rubbish in Hackney, about which many thousands of my constituents are concerned. Rubbish is an environmental blight on a borough which otherwise has much to be proud of. We know that the council is doing its best, and we support it in that, but urge it to do even more, and we look to the Government to take the matter seriously. Despite what Conservative Members say the rubbish problem can best be solved by local councils and the Government, and cannot be dealt with by private enterprise. We have seen boroughs which have brought in private enterprise to collect bins and deal with rubbish, and the rubbish collection has almost collapsed.
My fellow Labour party Members and I take the matter extremely seriously. Conservative Members could be accused of hypocrisy because they never talk about making the resources and money available to enable councils such as Hackney to do the job. When I talk about the importance of solving the problem of litter, I know that I speak not only for many thousands of people in Hackney, many of whom have written to me, but for many millions of people in the country.
If Conservative Members and the Minister do not believe me when I talk about the rubbish menace in

659
Hackney, the piles of litter in Stoke Newington high street and on Stamford hill street corners, and the problem facing the cleansing department, I invite the Minister and the Prime Minister to come to Hackney to visit the streets which I mentioned and the cleansing department, and to talk to the dustmen, street cleaners and, above all, local residents. If the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary were to come to Hackney and see the rubbish menace with their own eyes, instead of returning to their palatial houses in the salubrious suburbs, I believe that the money—and we need money—to deal with the rubbish in Hackney would be forthcoming the next day. The Government should put money where their mouth is to tackle the problem of rubbish in the environment.
1.43 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I too welcome the opportunity this morning to debate this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) was right when she said that the public rightly perceive this as a most important issue, not just for those living in Hackney. I listened most carefully and I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will take up the invitation offered by my hon. Friend. I am sure that people all over the country would also wish to extend that invitation and I fear that the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary will have to make many visits if they are to obtain some grasp of the extent of the litter problem which exists throughout the streets of our towns and countryside.
The fact that for the past 10 years the Government have avoided taking any action to deal with this important issue other than, as we have heard so clearly this morning, cutting back on local authority expenditure, is an indication of the political priority which they give to the issue. I welcome the move made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to provide the Chamber with an opportunity to discuss this issue. I only wish that his example had been followed much earlier by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
During the debate we have heard much about head teachers, their role and the way in which they have set an example in schools. I pay tribute to my own head teacher whom I have not seen for 22 years, Mr. E. S. Kelly, who instilled in all his pupils the idea that it was wrong to drop litter. He told us that sweets were bad for our teeth, and he was right, but he also told us that we should never drop wrappers or rubbish in the street. He told us to put it in our pockets and take it away or to put it in the bin. He was such a good teacher that his words of wisdom have stayed with me and no doubt they will continue to do so.
I only wish that the Prime Minister had the same commitment to dealing with the problem. The Prime Minister should not lecture members of the public about picking up rubbish when she so contrived it that officials from the Department of the Environment dropped the rubbish that she picked up in the first place. Many people who are concerned about the environment know only too well how hollow the Prime Minister's calls for action are.
We have heard about the so-called shining example set by Westminster council which came to the House for powers to do something about litter. But Westminster had to take the initiative, just as this opportunity to discuss the subject has arisen on the initiative of a private Member.
660
We cannot deal with the matter in isolation or look at the example of one local authority, even if that authority is doing well, which I doubt. The Government should introduce well thought-out plans and strategies and provide the necessary resources to do something about the problem. I draw the attention of the House also to the grave problems in the City of Westminster; so far from being concerned about the problem of rubbish, the council was not even charging traders for the disposal of commercial rubbish. That is an important omission.
For 10 years now, our towns and cities have played host to a consumer society in which it is all too easy to throw things away. I agree with what William Morris said—that one should look carefully at material objects and decide whether they are useful or beautiful. If they are neither, one should not create consumer demand for them. A great deal of work needs to be done and I have no doubt that consumers will start to vote with their feet and will not go out and buy unnecessary goods in unnecessary packaging. Consumers have an important part to play in conveying the message that much of what is produced is not necessary—that it is a waste of resources and a waste of the energy to produce it.
Given that there is a huge problem and that rubbish is strewn across our countrysides and roads, what have the Government done and what do they propose to do in future? I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Department's strategy is. It certainly has not had a strategy for the past 10 years. It is difficult to see what the Secretary of State for the Environment has done since the Prime Minister hauled him in following her visit to Israel back in 1986 to point out that beautiful Britain was beautiful no more because of the large amount of rubbish.
Consumers have responsibilities and, like schools and head teachers, could do much to improve matters, by changing their lifestyle. Unless that is backed by effective legislation, effective deterrents to the dropping of litter, properly resourced local authorities and the sort of initiatives already taken by Sheffield, the contributions of individuals will be lost in the sea of rubbish. I congratulate those hon. Members who have put the issue of litter and rubbish into the wider context, because no discussion can be effective without considering the need for waste minimisation, waste reduction and recycling.
It is important that the Minister tells us what the Government intend to do about recycling. What is the Government's position on the European directives relating to the recycling and re-use of glass containers? What discussions is the Minister having with her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry? Why is there no concerted Government action? Why are any policies on recycling being lost between the bureaucracies of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment? Despite the good example set by the Minister's own Department, why does not the Serjeant at Arms have any authority to provide recycled paper in the Palace of Westminster? That is the Government's responsibility. It is a nonsense that hon. Members are still sending out correspondence about recycling on non-recycled paper. If it is all right for the Department of the Environment to decide to use recycled paper, why is it not all right for the Palace of Westminster? Why are hon. Members suffering the long-standing penalty of having to write letters on non-recycled paper when they are trying to get some action on the issue? The Government have the

661
responsibility to direct and lead and their failure to do so is indicative of their lack of adequate policies during the past 10 years.
When the much-heralded green Bill finally appears before the House, what commitments will it contain on recycling? I hope that the Minister can tell us that today. The Department of the Environment published a Green Paper on the role of waste disposal authorities, but it contained nothing of significance on the issue of recycling.
Following the earlier conclusion caused by the failure to distinguish clearly between waste and reclaimable materials when sections 12 to 14 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were enacted, the worrying impression has been created that the importance of the role of recycling is not yet fully recognised by the Department of the Environment. We must be told whether, in the reorganisation of the waste disposal functions of local authorities, the importance of recycling will be recognised. Certainly no reference to that appears in the Green Paper. Why not? Will the Minister assure the House that she will include recycling.
Has the Minister any plans to impose a duty on local authorities to set up recycling facilities? Such an important function should not be left to market forces and introduced only if a profit can be made from it. The Opposition are concerned about the environment and we believe that the environmental costs of different policies are equally as important as the economic costs—which are so often the only costs taken into account in the Government's policies.
Has the Minister any plans to license and regulate recycling facilities? What plans are there for each local authority to publish annual recycling plans? For the past 10 years, there has been a responsibility on waste disposal authorities to produce a strategic plan for dealing with waste management. Even after 10 years, some authorities have not produced those plans. It is doubly important that the Government should require each authority with responsibility for waste management to publish an annual recycling plan.
Will the Minister allow any financial surplus from consumer-aided recycling schemes to be reapplied to the beneft of the local environment? If individuals are to do their bit to conserve resources, they need to know that they can reap the benefits.
The Minister should realise that any recycling policy will cost money. As we have heard many times today, local councils have been badly affected by rate-capping policies and prevented from initiating and even maintaining their varied range of services to deal with all aspects of waste, including litter and rubbish.
Salaries have been cut for people who clean and sweep the streets and empty rubbish bins, and their conditions of employment have worsened. There has also been a reduction in the provision of rubbish bins. We have seen the examples that were referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who talked about getting people to pick up litter as punishment. There has been a growth of community schemes, funded by the Manpower Services Commission, doing work that should rightly have been done by local authorities on a regular daily, weekly and monthly basis. The result is that, even in the voluntary sector, the work of projects such as UK 2000, which have
662
important ideas to introduce, has been marginalised. It has been possible to do that work only on the cheap. We want the Government to give a commitment that they will make available to local councils the money that will enable them to take full advantage of important pilot projects such as UK 2000 under its present leadership.
It is important to know whether the Minister has any plans, when dealing with rubbish and litter in a co-ordinated way, to give planning authorities extra powers to require and provide resources for clearing derelict land—to give derelict land a facelift—so that people can have a sense of pride in the community. Unless that is done, it will be difficult for individuals to recognise what they can achieve through their own actions if all they see around them is decay, neglect and dereliction as a result of cuts in local authority services.
Local councils provide bottle banks and opportunities for recycling and are the only ones who empty rubbish bins. They have many imaginative schemes for bulky household refuse collections, which prevents fly tipping on the streets, and for regular street cleaning. Local authorities also provide money for school education projects, and local councils should be encouraged to take the initiative of employing more officers to promote a dialogue with local industry so that partnership schemes might be introduced. They should also have greater scope to remove the abandoned cars that clutter our streets.
All such services cost money, and often they are provided by the same councils that have been worst hit by 50 legislative changes made over the past 10 years, such as rate capping. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that money will be available for a wide range of projects.
The Department of the Environment together with other Departments should take the lead. Does the Minister have any plans to discuss with the Home Secretary the whole inadequacy of current legislation relating to litter? Reference has been made to prosecutions and I have a table showing prosecutions ranging from 296 in Cumbria to a mere nine in Cambridgeshire. However, it does not show that in some areas there were no prosecutions whatsover. Comments by Graham Ashworth of the Keep Britain Tidy Group show only too clearly that the Litter Act 1983 is not working. Why has section 4 never been enacted, and what proposals do the Government have to update that legislation so that fines and penalties will serve as an effective deterrent, or be incorporated into the green Bill—not just as an isolated piece of legislation such as the Control of Litter (Fines) Bill of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), but as part of an overall and concerted approach to the problems of litter and rubbish?
Other issues to be addressed include the need for higher standards of transport. The Minister for Roads and Traffic produced £1 million to improve trunk roads, but at the same time reduced cleansing standards. What is the use of coming up with a little money once a year when councils no longer have the resources every day of the year? We heard from the Home Secretary the role that litter played in the tragic Bradford stadium fire. What laws exist to control litter in places such as football stadiums? The answer is that they are not covered by existing legislation.
Mention has been made in the debate of fly tipping, but the Government have made no proposals for introducing a remedy. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) to introduce

663
legislation for dealing with that offence—but I congratulate the Minister on ensuring that both part I and part II will reach the statute book regardless of the views of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
For the past 10 years, Government policy on litter has been non-existent. The Prime Minister pays lip service to the need to clean up our dirty streets, towns, parks and countryside. But lip service is all that there has been. There is no place in the debate for lip service and double standards, but there is a place for concerted and co-ordinated action by the Government. The public will not follow the example set out by Ministers who drop litter in this Chamber, or by a Prime Minister who instructs that rubbish should be dropped in St. James's park so that she may make a hollow political point. The Prime Minister's hypocritical action in instructing Department of the Environment officials to drop rubbish so that she could be publicly seen to pick it up was not lost on the environmentally conscious public.
People in towns, in rural areas and in the countryside generally want to be able to take pride in their communities. They want to play their part. They want their councils to take a lead, and they want those councils to have the resources. They want properly funded cleansing services; they do not want gimmicks. They want more than £3 million to be spent on the initiatives that the voluntary sector has introduced. They want to be involved in all that is going on, and they want a commitment to waste reduction and recycling.
People desperately want the green Bill to take the wider issues on board, and, rightly, they fear that under the present Government it will be based entirely on subservience to market forces. They want the existing legislation to be updated so that it is a real deterrent and dropping litter a real offence. After last week, they know that only a Labour Government can to that. Those of us who are genuinely concerned know that "bagging and binning it" will not change anything. Conservative Members may laugh, but their day of reckoning will come, and on the record of the past 10 years their policies will win nothing.
Local authorities need power and resources. As has been said, litter is a public health problem, and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers is rightly concerned about it. More than anything else, it is an indication of the extent to which we have become a throw-away society. The public pressure to clean up our towns and cities is there. Real action is needed. So far we have had only lip service, and I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will give us a firmer commitment today.
2.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I join others in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his initiative in raising a subject that is of crucial importance to all hon. Members and, I believe, to all members of the public.
The Government are determined to take decisive action to deal with the problem. We have had a strong lead from the Prime Minister, who, long before other green campaigners jumped on to the bandwagon, made it
664
abundantly clear that it was time to wage war on litter and to see action—and that is what the Government intend to do.
The contributions to today's debate have been noticeably constructive, realistic and practical, and have shown considerable knowledge of a complex and detailed subject. Litter relates to waste disposal, refuse collection and street-cleansing systems, and has strong implications for householders, business operators and individual citizens. It is of course important that our proposals take account of the way in which litter abatement can be properly effected in that wider context, and, as is generally known, we shall be introducing an environment protection Bill at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will update waste disposal regulations. We want the waste operation authorities to discharge their responsibilities properly, and we want waste to be dealt with properly from its origin to its disposal. We shall also make provision for longer-term disposal.
Litter is not a trivial subject but one of great importance to us all, and it plays its part in the many other environmental concerns with which the Government have rightly dealt. We have a proud record in giving a lead on a range of subjects. Deservedly, the Government and the Prime Minister have received much credit for the "saving the ozone layer" conference, for the moves towards establishing a framework convention on climate change and for doing so much to tackle the problem of acid rain, to clean up our rivers and to ensure that throughout the spectrum—at global, national, regional and individual levels—we are taking all the proper steps to improve our environment and to ensure that Britain is a beautiful country in which we can justly take pride.
Conservative Members believe that remarkable achievements have taken place in the bid to restore Britain's place in the world. We are committed to ensuring that we can show the same lead on the environmental front, and nothing prompts more concern than the offensive, unsighly and needless phenomenon of litter. We are not prepared to put up with dirty streets and squalid housing estates, or with our beautiful buildings and lovely countryside being despoiled by people's discarded refuse. That is why we so welcome the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford which identifies so many of these important subjects.
The green consumer is on the warpath. He is demanding that businesses put their house in order. Many hon. Members have referred to packaging. Businesses have already begun to respond to consumer demand by reducing the amount of packaging. Similarly, manufactuers responded to the need to remove chlorofluorocarbons from their products as soon as they realised that that was rightly and properly being demanded.
Many years ago the litter lout was seen for what he was and for what he should again be seen to be: an offensive individual who ought to be ashamed of committing such an offence. I shall say more about the powers that we hope will strengthen the litter laws. We are committed to a programme of Government action, but it must go hand in hand with a profound change of attitude.
There have been many examples in recent years of changes in attitude. Smoking is one example; the wearing of seat belts is another. During the last 10 years people's attitudes towards the wearing of seat belts have changed completely. Moreover, to give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for

665
Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), I ought to point out that the enforcement of the law on drinking and driving has led to a profound change in people's behaviour. We are determined that people's attitude towards litter should also change profoundly.
Many hon. Members have given examples of how people have responded to the need to clean up litter. My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) mentioned Raymond Watkins. There are people like Raymond Watkins throughout the country who are busily and eagerly playing their part in the war against litter. A co-ordinated and comprehensive strategy must be worked out.
Mention has been made of the excellent steps that have been taken by Westminster city council, which has to deal with particular problems. There are only 180,000 residents, but there is a daily commuter population of 750,000 and there are about 23 million tourists a year, about 9 million of whom come from overseas.
I spent a day with the Westminster group that deals with street cleaning and refuse collecting. It has a professional and profoundly dedicated approach to ensuring that the job is properly done. There are 8,500 litter bins, with 450 in Oxford street alone. It is no use Opposition Members saying that it is just a question of Government resources being needed. Many of the bins have been provided by sponsors. The group has been working with, not against the grain and has persuaded the fast food operators to come on to its side. The business community now realises that it is in its own best interests to ensure that the consumer can shop in good surroundings and not be surrounded by debris.
Westminster city council has adopted new technology and innovative methods. It has also used appropriate and helpful publicity and implemented the experimental fixed penalty scheme.
My hon. Friend the member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)—the "I love Basildon" supporter—referred again to the work that is being done in his area. Croydon's achievements are also magnificent. The Cleaner Chelmsford committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford referred is another example. It works best when there is a partnership between local residents, the business community, the local authority and schools—all those who, rightly and properly, have an interest in the matter.
Only yesterday I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and was told about Hendon's scheme. Local residents do not say that they want a nuclear-free zone and all the other cheap Opposition gimmicks. Instead they want a litter-free zone. In Hampstead garden suburb individual residents have taken over responsibility for the stretch of road outside their house. The organiser, Peter Loyd, has taken time and trouble to ensure that the task is done and that people feel involved and committed. There are similar schemes throughout the country, such as Spring Clean Day, organised by the Civic Trust and the Tidy Britain Group.
There have been a multiplicity of projects raising public awareness because so often people litter without being aware of it. Those projects are bringing people together and making sure that local authorities are playing their full
666
part. I pay special tribute to the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who is turning Cookham into a green village, the group at Chalfont St. Peter and many others throughout the country.
Businesses are also facing their responsibilities. There is more to be done. Many hon. Members have referred to the paper from cash dispensers and there are other specific problems. We shall look for ways of tackling them all.
At the root of the solution is a fundamental change in attitudes. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Chelmsford have referred to the importance of educating youngsters and working in schools. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has recently raised the subject with local education authorities.
Children are not natural litterers. All too often they learn the habit from their parents. We must mobilise them as our advocates and ambassadors. Many people have told me that they changed to using unleaded petrol because of the persuasive powers of their children. Youngsters can do a great deal about litter and we shall encourage schools to work with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford referred to the importance of education and example and that should not be overlooked.
However, we have to look at the carrot and the stick, so we must consider enforcement which has been mentioned by many hon. Members. Littering is a crime. Under the Litter Act 1983 it is an offence which currently attracts a fine of up to £400. Hon. Members have referred to the variability of prosecution. Although the maximum fine is £400, the average is between £32 and £35. We are concerned about that. Some groups have already taken steps to make sure that magistrates realise that littering is often the first step in the general decay of an area—delinquency, vandalism and petty crime—and should be recognised as serious in terms of punishment and in every other way.
Points have been raised about the absolute offence. There are difficulties because it is a general principle that simple actions should not in themselves be an offence unless accompanied by an indication of intent. In the Westminster fixed penalty scheme the litter wardens and others first advised the individual to pick up the piece of litter, before issuing a fixed penalty. It is important that enforcement works with some persuasion. We want to clean up Britain and clean up our streets.
We are looking very carefully at the Westminster scheme. Many other local authorities have asked for similar powers. In many ways it seems to have worked effectively and has been a useful tool for the local authority in enabling it to fulfil its responsibilities.
In his private Member's Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford suggested that other local authorities should be able to adopt similar schemes. Unfortunately, his Bill has not made progress, but it may be that before long he will receive some encouragement on that part of it.
We have mentioned many examples of forward-looking and imaginative local authorities. But we have to accept that other local authorities have singularly failed in their responsibilities to clean streets regularly, effectively and efficiently. They are not giving the citizens the service that they want. Too often people see dirty streets when they want cleans ones. People want clean streets and

667
pavements, parks, playing fields, car parks, shopping centres, roadside verges and roundabouts. They are entitled to them. The Government will take action to ensure that in future, all local authorities deliver what the best already do, permanently. As the House is aware, we have proposed a new duty on local authorities to keep their land clean. This will clarify and codify their present range of duties and responsibilities.
We are also proposing a code of practice to which local authorities must have regard in carrying out their duty. For the first time, this will set clear objective standards. Local authorities will be required to meet these standards and will be certain of what they must aim for, and local residents will be able to see when an authority is not reaching the standard, and call it to account.
I must emphasise that the code is to be a reasonable document. It will be a tool for local authorities to use, taking account of practicalities in the task of cleaning up as well as the high standards that local residents are entitled to expect. It will spell out specific requirements on particular problems and will give clear advice. It will be a vehicle for recommending the best means of achieving those standards.
In drawing up the code, on which we shall be consulting local authorities, businesses and all interested parties, we have taken care to learn from the lessons of the Tidy Britain Group. The House is aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the group's forward-looking, anti-litter initiative—the 27 pilot projects examining major problem areas such as high streets, tourist areas, transport and special events. In each case, it is not simply a global wish that the place should be cleaned up but a scientific, analytical study of the methods that work and not of the best way of hoping that something will happen.
Before and after studies have been incorporated to assess the effectiveness. The intention is to establish the best ways of cleaning particular areas and getting all sectors involved in keeping them clean. We want to spread the lessons learnt to other areas so that all can benefit. The group will be drawing up practical guidelines on how to tackle particular problem areas.
There has been excellent co-operation between local authorities, chambers of commerce, voluntary groups and others. I have been lucky enough to launch a number of projects. The Government are providing a grant of £3 million for the Tidy Britain Group. It will be used to pioneer the group's schemes. Often the delivery and organisation is a matter for local authorities, businesses and all others who are partners in the campaign against litter.
The local authorities have already embarked, rightly, on contracting out and competitive tendering for a number of services under the Local Government Act 1988. Some Opposition Members have bleated about resources in the context of local authorities being required more effectively to fulfil the responsibility they already have. The Government have provided more resources for local authorities in terms of grant this year and we all know that there is great scope for savings in competitive tendering and in using the private sector. The Audit Commission report entitled "Preparing for Compulsory Competition" makes it clear that savings of 20 per cent. or more can be achieved in contract prices. That is an undeniable opportunity for local authorities.
668
Local authorities will also have an opportunity to specify the service they want and the quality they want and to ensure that there are penalty points in the contract so that local residents obtain good value for money and high-quality services, and the best have done that very well. All must be joined in the campaign against litter.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) talked about dogs. Local authorities already have powers to make byelaws on fouling. We have made it clear that the new duty to keep land clean will extend to dog mess. That will complement our further proposals announced last week, including a duty on local authorities to deal with strays and the power to charge for kennelling in the meantime. The Home Secretary has announced his plan to introduce powers to control dangerous dogs. The proposals are the right way of tackling dog fouling, straying and attacks by dangerous dogs. They will make an important impact.
No one can tackle the problem of litter alone, and no one will achieve a litter-free Britain overnight. However, the job must be done, and the Government are firmly committed to ensuring that it is. As Minister with special responsibility for litter, I want to make it clear how urgent the task is. It is clear that people have the energy and the will to take it on, but we must mobilise every section of society into playing its part.
Next year is Tidy Britain Year. It marks the beginning of a long-term campaign—the clean-90s campaign—to change fundamentally and permanently our attitude to litter and the way in which we cope with it. The Government give the campaign full backing. We shall provide the tools and ensure that those responsible are properly equipped and motivated to do the job.
Litter is not only a matter of legislation. It is a task for everyone working together, above all, in the local community. We need energy, co-operation and enthusiasm from politicians, officials, business and commerce, schools and voluntary groups and, above all, from individuals. We need people who are prepared to show an example—to bend down and pick up litter. Local authorities must fulfil their responsibilities and give individuals the power to take action when they are dissatisfied with what local authorities are achieving.
We need energy, enthusiasm, education, enforcement and example. We shall not hesitate to set an example. We shall shortly be bringing forward our clear proposals for our campaign against litter. We shall not hesitate to take the decisive action that is necessary to tackle this unacceptable and offensive scourge once and for all.
2.26 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on raising this issue. He did so, as he always does on behalf of his constituents, with great dedication. He puts many hon. Members to shame by the amount of work that he does in this place.
It is peculiar speaking after my hon. Friend the Minister. It is a long time since I heard a junior Minister make such a wonderful speech, making the Government's case clear to the country. All who listen to broadcasts of her speech or read reports of it tomorrow will be encouraged by the efforts that she and her officials are making to ensure that once again Britain can take pride in

669
being clean and sparkling for visitors and people who live here. One often returns from foreign countries and enviously says, "I wish that our towns were as clean as some of those that I visited." As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the difference between us and other countries is our attitude. Parents, teachers and headmasters should teach children not to drop litter. If street cleaners do their work well, they set an example, and people will not add to their task by throwing litter and rubbish everywhere.
Westminster city council was mentioned earlier. Westminster must almost be the dustbin of the world. It is one of the greatest tourist attractions in the world. It is faced with a huge task, because overseas visitors are not always as careful in our city as they are in their own.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) mentioned Hackney. The rubbish in Hackney does not result from visitors dropping it there. The rubbish in Hackney is probably the people of Hackney. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, like me, must set an example. I must conclude and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to sum up the debate.
2.29 pm
Mr. Burns: I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate this important matter and I thank hon. Members for their valid contributions. I am reassured by the Minister's statement that the Government are determined to beat the litter louts and to get Britain clean again in the next few years.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to taking decisive measures to tackle the problem of litter; urges all those responsible for land in cities, towns and countryside to take account of widespread public concern at littering and discharge effectively their responsibility to keep that land free of litter; calls for urgent new measures to discourage littering, to assist those who are already taking seriously their responsibilities and to ensure that those who do not are obliged to do so; and supports the Government's proposal to place a duty on local authorities to keep their areas clean and to publish a code of practice.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.
    2.30 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean no disrespect, but I detected some tardiness in the Clerk getting to his feet. I was on the point of moving, That the Bill be read a Second time. Yesterday, 500 London pensioners came to the House to lobby in support of the Bill. Only one Tory Member agreed to meet them. They will be disappointed that the Bill was not discussed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Objection has been made to the Bill and the hon. Member has given a date for Second Reading.

    ITINERANTS (CONTROL) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 30 June.

    FIRE SAFETY INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN RETIREMENT HOMES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    RE-ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

    FOOTBALL SPECTATORS (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till 7 July.

Enfield Royal Ordnance Factory
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean]
2.32 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance—new evidence which has been presented to me about the sale of the Royal Ordnance factories by the Ministry of Defence to British Aerospace and, in particular, the sale of the former Royal Ordnance factory at Enfield, north London.
The Enfield factory, which opened in 1811, was one of the best-known rifle factories in the world and its highly skilled work force produced one of the Army's best-known weapons in the Lee Enfield rifle. It was a tragedy when the closure of the Enfield factory, with the loss of 1,200 jobs, was announced in August 1987, four months after British Aerospace had purchased Royal Ordnance for £190 million. At the time, the Enfield factory was valued by the Ministry of Defence at just £1·5 million. However, estimates of its redevelopment value have since ranged from £50 million to £125 million. It is a prime 100-acre site just within the M25, which has become a natural boundary for the green belt. Plans to develop the site for industry, commerce, housing and leisure were announced in May this year.
In a report published last year, the Public Accounts Committee said that it was concerned that the Ministry of Defence did not explore the possibility of redevelopment at Enfield or obtain an alternative valuation of the site based on the assumption that redevelopment might be approved in the future. The report of the Public Accounts Committee warned that British Aerospace could make a substantial gain on the site's sale or development without benefits accuring to taxpayers. Opposition Members and even some Conservative Members believe that these events are an indictment of the Government who have given away Royal Ordnance at a knock-down price and closed their eyes to the development potential at Enfield.
However, new evidence has been passed to me which suggests that the Government actively connived at the closure of the Enfield factory because they knew that the site would be closed and redeveloped before they sold Royal Ordnance to British Aerospace. The evidence also suggests that the Government engaged in a charade of competition in which other companies as well as British Aerospace were supposedly bidding for Royal Ordnance, while the Government had already made up their mind to hand the factories to British Aerospace.
The managing director of an engineering firm which used to make parts for the Enfield factory has informed me that about 30 subcontracting firms were called by the Ministry of Defence to a meeting at the Enfield factory in the autumn of 1986, about seven months before the sale to British Aerospace was announced. During interviews which lasted about four hours, the managing director told me that the subcontractors were told at the meeting that British Aerospace would be purchasing Royal Ordnance and would be closing the Enfield factory because the site was worth a great deal which would cover the cost of the purchase of Royal Ordnance.
All the 30 subcontractors present were asked under no circumstances to report that information and not to allow the closure plan to be known. According to the managing

673
director, British Aerospace officials were present at the meeting. Indeed, they openly discussed the terms and conditions under which the subcontractors would work once British Aerospace had bought Royal Ordnance. British Aerospace officials also had with them full specifications and samples of the SA80 rifle, production of which was to be transferred from Enfield to the Royal Ordnance factory at Nottingham as part of the closure plan.
The Minister may wonder why I have not revealed the name of the engineering firm or the managing director who has told me about the Enfield meeting. The reason is that he passed on the information in confidence although his firm no longer works for the Ministry of Defence. He has no axe to grind with the Ministry because the company decided to expand into other sectors. He wishes to remain anonymous because he fears that going public could jeopardise his chances of winning orders not from the Ministry of Defence, but from other big companies. I can understand his reluctance to allow his name to be made public. Look what happened at the Coventry Webster Machine Tool factory, which was drawn to the attention of the House on 18 June 1980 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I am aware that on that occasion the John Brown company brought pressure to bear on the individuals involved with threats of closure and redundancies. Ironically, it has suffered the same fate earmarked for Enfield. In Coventry, a housing estate now exists where the factory once stood.
I cannot overstress the vulnerability of that company director and I repeat that I understand his reluctance to allow his name to be made public. Can Ministers who use their office to carry out this form of grand larceny, and who culpably devalue the parliamentary rights of every hon. Member and the democratic rights of every British citizen, be trusted to protect the trading position of this public-spirited individual and his employees? I must tell the House that I fully believe the managing director's assertions that such a meeting took place at the Enfield factory. All the evidence points to the fact that the Government, who supposedly believe in market forces, stitched up a deal with British Aerospace to ease the company's cash flow problem and to rob the taxpayers of millions of pounds.
The Enfield case is not an isolated one. Last November, a leaked memo from Warburg Securities revealed that British Aerospace was sitting on a land bank worth £1·1 billion, much of which it acquired when Austin Rover and Royal Ordnance were privatised and sold to British Aerospace. The report valued Enfield and the nearby Waltham Abbey Royal Ordnance factories at a total of £450 million. Royal Ordnance had already decided to close the Waltham Abbey site before it was sold to British Aerospace. Despite that, it was still valued at only £2 million.
The leaked Warburg memo gets to the heart of the matter and suggests that British Aerospace should
"move out of the southern sites where possible"
and
"move into cheaper labour northern areas."
It says that
"unemployment in the south is not a political issue"
and that
674
"redundancy costs are more than covered by land sales and pension fund surplus."
British Aerospace and the Government have connived in nothing less than naked asset-stripping on a massive scale. Yet Ministers at the Ministry of Defence have not been held responsible for deliberately cheating the taxpayer out of millions of pounds and allowing British Aerospace to make a killing. If a local authority had become involved in a scandal remotely like this one, I am pretty sure that the Government and the district auditor would have intervened and the councillors responsible would have been surcharged, disqualified and even sent to prison.
Ministers are fond of talking about local authorities' alleged abuse of power. The Government are currently pushing through Parliament a Bill supposedly designed to tackle the minuscule problem by banning 130,000 council officers from political activity. That is hypocrisy of the highest order because the real abuse of power is carried out by central Government. Nowhere has that been done more openly than with the sale of the Royal Ordnance factories to British Aerospace.
Ministers often say that legislation is needed to reform local government but not central Government because Ministers are accountable to Parliament. That has been exposed as nonsense by the Royal Ordnance sale. Yesterday's National Audit Office report clearly established that the foundation for the privatisation of Royal Ordnance was laid down in 1984. It also established that the Ministry of Defence's degree of commitment for the Government's privatisation philosophy was such that it no longer recognised its responsibility to the House of Commons. The comptroller's report pointed to the blatant contempt which was shown when, having set up a meeting of 30 subcontractors in September 1986, the Ministry then issued an information memorandum to supposed prospective purchasers in October 1986. That is conclusive evidence that the Government, through their Ministries were involved in asset-stripping.
Enfield originally made 115 of the rifle's 140 parts, and only 25 were out-sourced. Since production was transferred to Nottingham, only 12 parts are manufactured in house and 138 are manufactured by the vultures who, in 1986, sat down and tore to pieces the process and the Enfield work force. It is about time that questions were asked inside the Ministry of Defence, which was responsible for the give-away sale, and connived in a plan to close Enfield, which put 1,200 workers out of a job, and redeveloped the factory site. This is a matter of the gravest public concern and warrants an urgent investigation into the conduct of the Government and the Minister.
2.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Any disinterested observer who had not read the National Audit Office report but who read the varying press comment on it might be forgiven for believing that at least two—perhaps even more—reports had been published yesterday. He would have been still more confused if he had heard the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) during the Army debate claiming that the Enfield site had already been sold for between £300 and £400 million.
There is just one report, and the accounting officer, Sir Michael Quinlan, will be giving evidence on it on Monday. We do not of course wish to pre-empt the Public Accounts

675
Committee's study, but the report repays careful study. Indeed, I am tempted to read it aloud, the better to inform those who have apparently not bothered to study it.
It may be of help if I explain the background to the sale.
The first point, and one which seems to be constantly overlooked by critics, is that the sale was not of a piece of land, but of a business. As the report says, it was the Government's aim to sell Royal Ordnance as a going concern; it was sold with a number of assets but also with all its liabilities. The net worth of the company reflects both those elements.
Before any increase in the value of the sites at Enfield and Waltham Abbey can be realised, high costs will have to be incurred. I shall say more about that in a moment. As an illustration, Royal Ordnance provided £100 million in its 1987 accounts for rationalisation and restructuring. Against that background, it is completely unrealistic to look at only one side of the balance sheet.
I must make it quite clear yet again that the Ministry of Defence did not sell the Enfield site for £1·5 million or any other figure: we sold a business which was, and remains, one of our main defence suppliers.
It may help the House if I describe the history of the valuations of the Enfield site. In preparation for the privatisation of Royal Ordnance, the Department commissioned a valuation of all the company's land holdings, from a highly reputable firm of chartered surveyors. That company valued the company's sites on two bases—their existing use value, based on the open market value of the land itself and the depreciated replacement cost of the buildings and other works, and their alternative use value, based on the open market value of the sites taking into account the possibility of use for other purposes. The existing use valuation of Enfield, as at 31 December 1985, was £4·1 million. The alternative use valuation taking into account the possibility of use for other purposes was £2 million—that is, less than half the existing use valuation. The higher, existing use, valuation was made available to prospective purchasers of Royal Ordnance.
For those who are familiar with neither the complexities of property development, nor the site and the difficulities, risks, delays and uncertainties which would be involved in developing it—I fear that they include many of those who commented on the transaction—perhaps I should explain why the alternative use valuation was apparently so low.
In arriving at their valuation, our surveyors took into account a number of factors that seem to have been completely ignored by those who have simply assumed that the entire site would be capable of maximum development and would therefore command a high price for every one of its acres.
First and most important, the assumption ignores the fact that the site is within the metropolitan green belt, and at that time had no planning permission for development. Indeed, it still has no planning permission—nor is any planning application outstanding. It therefore remains to be seen whether permission will be granted, and if so, on what terms, and for what parts of the site.
Secondly, in valuing the site, one has to take into account the likelihood that any planning consents would be restricted as to the type of development which might be permitted.
Thirdly, there are the substantial restructuring and redundancy costs. Enfield was, after all, a manufacturing
676
site, and British Aerospace has estimated that there will be a £40 million cost in closing it and providing the facilities at Nottingham.
Fourthly, there are likely to be significant decontamination costs, particularly at the Waltham Abbey site, although the full extent of these is not yet clear. That is a typical example of the uncertainties that surround any development proposals.
Fifthly, other substantial costs will be involved in preparing the site for development, and for example, in site clearance.
As the report says:
"The National Audit Office's consultants considered it likely that a developer would be required, as a condition of planning permission, to carry out an abnormal amount of landscaping over an extensive area and to undertake other costly works."
Suitable access is a particular problem at Enfield, where there appears to be only one means of access. In such cases, where a specific piece of land has to be purchased for access to an otherwise land-locked site, it is known in the trade as "ransom land". Ransom land is well named. It is commonly the case that its owner can negotiate a price with those who hope to purchase it based on a share of the development value of the entire site to which it gives access. That share can be up to 50 per cent. of the development value in cases such as Enfield, where there is only one possible means of access.
Finally, there is the delay in receiving any returns on all this investment. It is already more than two years since the sale, and no receipts are yet in prospect.
There has been reference to whether there should have been a clawback provision in the sale. Clearly we will be looking carefully at what the report has to say on clawback, both in general and with reference to this case. All clawback arrangements have about them an element of swings and roundabouts. The possibility of more later not surprisingly usually means less now. However, when the sale is just of a piece of land, the inclusion of a clawback provision is relatively straightforward and the advantages and disadvantages comparatively easy to evaluate. The sale of Royal Ordnance was not like that. Nor is there evidence that clawback is at all common when businesses, as distinct from land as such, are sold. That is the view of Rothschild, our merchant bank advisers for the sale, which has wide experience in such matters.
One of the aims of privatisation was to put Royal Ordnance on a full commercial footing, as free as possible from Government restraints on the way it conducted its business. A clawback provision would have had the undesirable result of a continuing involvement by the Department in the rationalisation of the company, because manufacturing facilities would have to be relocated before the site was fully available for redevelopment. Furthermore the Ministry of Defence is its main customer.
As I have said, when selling a business as a going concern a number of judgments have to be made—for example, what land potential purchasers of the company might consider to be surplus to their overall requirements, and different purchasers might have different views on that, depending on the requirements of other parts of their business; what type of redevelopment might maximise the value of such land; and how likely it is that planning permission for that could he obtained. It can take years to

677
obtain a final decision on planning permission, which would inevitably prolong uncertainty and delay the achievement of the wider aims of privatisation.
There may well be some gain to be made from developing the sites, but that would only occur after substantial hurdles in the way of development have been overcome. Given all the risks, uncertainties, delays and costs that will be involved, it is clear that the allegations of enormous windfall profits from such development simply do not stand up to close examination.
Mr. Steve Norris: I represent one of the significant sites involved, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in such a short debate. Does he agree that contrary to all the ludicrous speculation about values amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds attributed to those sites, the NAO report in fact clearly states:
"The NAO noted that they valued these sites as at 31 March 1989 at no more than 8·3 per cent. of the figures reported by the media in 1988."
Does my hon. Friend agree that as the most ludicrous of all those figures was probably about £400 million, the NAO is basically saying that the actual value of those sites has never been more than about £25 million to £30 million —exactly as we assumed when the original sale of Royal Ordnance was made?
Mr. Sainsbury: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in those matters, as does our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), in whose constituency lies the Enfield site. The figure that my hon. Friend quotes from the NAO report is the latest valuation, some two years after the date of the sale, since when there has been an increase in property values. The figure of 8·3 per cent. puts the matter in perspective.
The suggestion that in all this the Department neglected to obtain good value for money for the taxpayer from the sale of Royal Ordnance, and was somehow misled into parting with valuable assets at less than their real value, is particularly misguided.
The allegation that appears in the press from time to time that we sold individual sites for their existing use values of a few million is nonsense. At the time of the sale, we were fully aware of the low value of the sites which the National Audit Office's equally expert surveyors have now confirmed, and of the substantial risks and costs of developing them which our surveyors had identified. We withheld from bidders for the company details of the alternative use valuations of the sites precisely because they were lower than the existing use valuations. In fact, the total alternative use valuations of the Royal Ordnance sites was a negative figure.
The hon. Gentleman made allegations about decisions to close taken before the sale. I firmly reject any suggestion that the closure of the Enfield factory was decided before the sale. Although the company had decided before the sale to apply to develop the Waltham Abbey site and the surplus piece of land within the boundaries of the adjacent Enfield site, no decision had been taken to close the Enfield operation. That decision was made after the sale by the new owners, and was announced in August 1987. We have no record of any meeting involving the Ministry of Defence at which the future ownership of Royal Ordnance was discussed with Royal Ordnance subcontractors, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
678
At that time, Royal Ordnance Enfield would have been involved in preparing its tender for the second tranche of SA80 production. Tenders were invited in June 1986 for reply by November 1986, and the decision to accept the Royal Ordnance tender, subject to confirmation by the new owners of the company, was made in February 1987. No doubt, Royal Ordnance would be able to say whether it had held any meetings with subcontractors at which the future ownership of the company was raised.
The essential point is that, at no time before the sale of Royal Ordnance was agreed on 2 April 1987, was anyone in a position to make any authoritative statement about the future ownership of the company—neither anyone connected with the Department nor anyone at Royal Ordnance, since that company was not even a party to the sale negotiations.
It is unfortuate that the new evidence that the hon. Gentleman claims to have had in his possession for nearly two weeks, as of yesterday was still not in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that he will bring it forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that neither his constituent nor his business has anything to fear if he does so.
Mr. John Hughes: I have already written to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and supplied him with the information.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to hear that. As of yesterday, it was not in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee.
In conclusion, I repeat that the various allegations which have been made about the sale of Royal Ordnance are completely unfounded. The company was sold for £190 million in an open and wide-ranging competition to the bidder who made the highest offer—a highly satisfactory return for the taxpayer. The valuations that were made at the time of the sale have been generally endorsed by the surveyors commissioned by the National Audit Office. The company, in its new ownership, has already begun the process of rationalisation and restructuring, which we expect to be of great benefit to the Department and hence to the taxpayer in fostering a more competitive ammunition industry.
The most important point is that it is now absolutely clear that the sale of Royal Ordnance was no "rip-off" of the taxpayer. There was not and is not a "pot of gold" which the Ministry of Defence virtually gave away. The Enfield site has not been sold, has no planning permission and has had no development carried out upon it. The site values that have been quoted by some Opposition Members are nonsense. The reports that appeared in the press about likely development profits were, it is now clear, plainly inaccurate and unjustified.
None of them came from responsible valuers in possession of all the facts. Indeed, I note that, in the case of the figure quoted in the Warburgs report, the company itself, in a statement to the National Audit Office, acknowledges that
" … there was no suggestion in the report on British Aerospace that the values ascribed to properties represented professional valuations arrived at after examination of the sites and upon the basis of particular assumptions."
It was recognised that a proper professional valuation had not been made, that the sites had not been examined and that the necessary assumptions had not been made.
This transaction has been subjected to an unusual degree of scrutiny. The various investigations have

679
concluded that all proper procedures were followed and that due regard for the taxpayers' position was taken. In the words of the National Audit Office report,
680
"The National Audit Office recognise that the Department and their advisers took account of the relevant considerations in reaching their decisions and arranging for the sale of the company."
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Harp Seals
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the culling of baby harp seals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since there are no harp seals which are native to the United Kingdom, the question of culling does not arise in this country.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis his Department considers requests by prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentences in another United Kingdom jurisdiction.

  Mr. Hurd
  My Department, in conjunction with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices, has recently reviewed the policy governing requests by prisoners to be transferred to another jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. Any inmate in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland who applies to be transferred to either of the other jurisdictions to serve the rest of his or her sentence will normally be transferred, provided that (1) the inmate would have at least six months left to serve in the receiving jurisdiction before his or her date of release; (2) the inmate was ordinarily resident in the receiving jurisdiction prior to the current sentence; or his or her close family currently reside there and there arc reasonable grounds for believing that it is the inmate's firm intention to take up residence there on release; and (3) both Departments concerned are reasonably satisfied that the inmate will not, if transferred, disrupt or attempt to disrupt any prison establishment, or otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to security.

  Even if these conditions are met, however, transfer may be refused if it is considered that the inmate's crimes were so serious as to render him or her undeserving of any degree of public sympathy or to make it inappropriate that the inmate should benefit from a substantial reduction in time left to serve, if that would be a consequence of transfer. Similarly, transfers may be refused if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the inmate's primary intention in making the application is to secure a reduction in the time left to serve. On the other hand, an application that does not meet these conditions may nevertheless be granted where there are strong compassionate or other compelling grounds for transfer.

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Social Security Office

  Number of applications

  Number of awards

  Number of applications

  Number of awards

  Number of applications

  Number of awards

  Downpatrick

  1,155

  678

  433

  375

  446

  238

  Newcastle

  465

  309

  169

  143

  202

  134

  Kilkeel

  164

  146

  33

  32

  165

  133

  Ballynahinch

  204

  141

  84

  73

  168

  109

  Newry

  2,011

  1,496

  392

  352

  956

  548

  Banbridge

  744

  493

  210

  158

  420

  289

  Students (Immigration)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the new immigration rule which prevents visitors switching to student status whilst in the United Kingdom will be applied to visa nationals only; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. The generous provisions in the current rules have been abused by some who are not students but whose aim is to take work or to remain here permanently. Many of these enter as visitors and subsequently switch to student status, but have no intention whatsoever of pursuing genuine study here. The "no-switching" provision is designed to prevent this abuse and has been confined to visa nationals because the available evidence suggests that passengers from visa countries are the major source of the abuse. Hence, while in recent years visa nationals have made up only about 20 per cent. of those admitted to the country as students, they have constituted 60 per cent. of grants of extensions of stay as a student to those originally admitted as visitors. Further, two exercises conducted by the immigration service and the police against suspect educational establishments revealed that, of some 6,000 alleged students on the books of these establishments, 95 per cent. were visa nationals and 95 per cent. of these had been orginally admitted as ordinary or business visitors. The educational facilities offered were adequate for only a fraction of the number on the books.

  The change is therefore necessary to ensure the effective operation of the visa system. It would he wasteful of resources and unnecessary to extend it to non-visa nationals; in particular such an extension would require the needless issue of over 100,000 additional entry clearances worldwide each year. Visa nationals will still be able to come to the United Kingdom for study, even if they have been unable to finalise all the arrangements beforehand, provided that they make their intentions clear and obtain the necessary visa in advance. Genuine visitors will not be affected in any way.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Security (South Down)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of claimants who made application, were awarded and accepted(a) social fund loans, (b) community care grants at each of the social security offices in South Down for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  The information for the period 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 is given in the table.
  267
  The balance of applications in each category were refused, withdrawn by the applicant or were still to be decided at the end of March 1989.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pensioners at each of the social security offices in South Down no longer qualify for housing benefit as a result of the recent pension increase.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the total social fund expenditure has been written off as unrecoverable for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  Total social fund expenditure in the period 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 was £18,485,998. It was not practicable to pursue recovery of funeral payments of £934,665 and loans of £1,952. These figures are provisional.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 18 April,Official Report, column 130, to the hon. Member for

  Armagh city estate

  Number of executive owned units

  Number of units unoccupied

  Number of units vandalised/boarded up

  Emania Terrace

  12

  —

  —

  Banbrook/Brookhill/Railway Street

  122

  —

  —

  Callanbridge Park

  140

  8

  3

  Callan Street/Crescent

  40

  4

  3

  Cregagh/Mullanstown Primates Cottages

  59

  —

  —

  Culdee/Upper Irish Street

  102

  —

  —

  Daires Willows

  19

  —

  —

  Dalton

  66

  —

  —

  Druid's Villas

  28

  —

  —

  Drumarg

  126

  1

  —

  Drumbreda

  112

  —

  —

  Duke's Grove

  39

  3

  —

  Legarhill Park

  56

  —

  —

  Longstone

  94

  —

  —

  Mullacreevie

  187

  —

  —

  Navan Street/Terrace/Niall's Crescent

  60

  —

  —

  Windmill

  42

  —

  —

  Alexander

  60

  —

  —

  Ardmore Drive

  75

  —

  —

  Ballinahone

  62

  —

  —

  Barrack Street/Gaul Square/Woodford Place

  27

  —

  —

  Bridge House

  17

  —

  —

  Folly

  154

  7

  —

  Gough Avenue/Barrack Hill

  87

  —

  —

  Lisanally Gardens/Villas

  54

  —

  —

  Lonsdale Gardens

  14

  —

  —

  Newry Road

  4

  —

  —

  Orangefield Drumadd

  156

  —

  —

  Victoria Park

  13

  —

  —

  Total

  2,014

  23

  6

  The number of units of accommodation planned in Armagh City in each of the next five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of units

  1989–90

  21

  1990–91

  116

  1991–92

  2—

  1992–93

  2—

  1993–94

  2—

  268
  Brent, East, on what date the three claims were settled; and when he expects the eight other claims to be processed by.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: One claim was settled on 15 April 1988, the other two on 5 April 1989. It is not possible to give any indication of when the eight other claims will be processed.

  Housing (Armagh City)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many units of accommodation there are in each Housing Executive estate within Armagh city; how many units are currently unoccupied at each estate; how many units of each estate are presently vandalised or boarded up; and how many new units of accommodation does the executive propose to construct in Armagh city in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by the chairman that at 1 May 1989 the number of units of accommodation, the number of units unoccupied and the number of units vandalised or boarded up in each estate in Armagh city are as follows:

  1 Joint scheme with SHSSB. Includes six dwellings to be allocated for mentally handicapped.

  2 No schemes as yet programmed.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Bonds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of the early repurchases of Government bonds since the April Budget.

  Mr. Lilley
  Q2 figures will be published in the August Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. Net transactions, including redemptions, for March and April are published in table F of the Bank of England's monthly monetary statistics.

  Value Added Tax
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the operation of the value added tax cash accounting scheme; and whether he has any plans(a) to adjust the turnover level of £250,000 to take into account changes to the retail prices index and (b) to review the level of the threshold.

  Mr. Lilley
  The cash accounting scheme was introduced on 1 October 1987 and is available to businesses with an annual taxable turnover not exceeding £250,000. It is used by about 60,000 businesses. Customs and Excise have recently consulted representative bodies and small businesses to consider all aspects of the scheme with the aim of improving take-up. The views of those who responded are currently being considered and the outcome of the consultation will be announced in due course. The existing turnover limit is significantly higher than that originally proposed and required the formal agreement of the European Commission. Any further increase would also have to he approved by the Commission.

  Privatisation (Debt Repayment)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individual amounts of debt repayments written off in each of the privatisations and sale of Government assets since 1979 and the aggregate of these write-offs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The normal practice on privatisation of a nationalised industry or company wholly or majority owned by Government is to repay, rather than write off, debt. This repayment may be financed from the company's existing resources, the injection of new equity or new debt finance. In some cases the Government have provided the finance to repay debts, for example, by an equity injection.

  National loans fund debt has been written off only in the cases listed in the table, totalling £3,014,662,728. These write-offs had no direct effect on public expenditure since they represented a reconstruction of the balance sheets of the industries concerned. In each case, having had NLF debt written off, the successor company issued new equity or debt securities to be held by the Secretary of State as assets on the consolidated fund pending realisation.

  Year and Company

  Amount £

  1980–81

  National Freight Corporation (under Section 45 of the Transport Act 1980)

  100,000,000

  1982–83

  British Transport Docks Board (under Section 6(1) of the Transport Act 1981)

  81,293,616

  270

  Year and Company

  Amount £

  1984–85

  British Telecom (BT Extinguishment of Loans Order 1982)

  2,789,865,772

  1986–87

  BAA (under section 3 of the Airports Act 1986)

  43,503,340

TRANSPORT

  Rail Electrification (Birmingham)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received a letter dated 16 May from the chairman of the West Midlands passenger transport authority seeking a meeting between him and a delegation of members of the authority to discuss the electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line; and if he will meet such a delegation in the near future.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have agreed to meet the chairman of the West Midlands PTE when I have had BR's formal submission on this scheme.

  Pedestrian Safety
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost of the major research programme designed specifically to help identify further ways of reducing pedestrian casualties to which he refers in his pedestrian safety proposals published in April.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The cost of the research programme referred to in the Department's leaflet on pedestrian safety is roughly £1·6 million in the current year. It is likely to increase next year.

  Over 40 per cent. of the current figure is being spent on research aimed primarily at pedestrian safety. The remainder will benefit pedestrians along with other road users.

  Fast Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report the terms of reference and time scale to which private interests will need to work in order to bring about the construction of British Rail's proposed fast rail link from the Kent coast to London.

  Mr. Portillo
  These are matters for British Rail to discuss with the private interests concerned.

  Birmingham North Orbital Route
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those private companies who have approached his Department in connection with alternative methods of finance for the Birmingham north orbital route; and the date of their first approach.

  Mr. Portillo
  Some approaches have been made but these must remain commercially confidential.

  MV Majestic
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 550, to the hon. Member for Carrick,

  271
  Cumnock and Doon Valley relating to MV Majestic, what futher details he has of the nature of the underwater obstruction referred to.

  Mr. Portillo
  The investigation is continuing. It is known that the nets caught on an obstruction on the sea bottom but the nature of the obstruction has not been determined.

  Road Traffic Law
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to bring forward legislation to implement his proposals in "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time is available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Timetable Motions
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if, further to his reply of 16 March,Official Report, column 311, he will list the further occasions on which the Government have introduced the guillotine this Session.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Allocation of time order

  Bill

  Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland)

  3 May 1989

  Dock Work

  8 May 1989

WALES

  Medical Physicists
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take on the problem of medical physicists leaving National Health Service hospitals in south Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of medical physicists—whole-time equivalents—employed by health authorities in Wales over the past four years is given in the table. The management side of the Scientific and Professional Staffs Council is currently investigating the recruitment and retention of scientists, including medical physicists, within the NHS generally.

  In Wales, medical physicists have been included in staff groups designated for detailed scrutiny as part of the 1989 manpower resource planning exercise being undertaken by all district health authorities under the auspices of the manpower steering group, established by my Department, with the intention of examining manpower requirements over the next 10 years. Those plans will also examine wastage and recruitment rates for the purpose of identifying potential staffing difficulties and to enable action to be taken at the local or all-Wales level to forestall problems. Work is also in hand by the manpower steering group on a study of medical physics and bio-engineering in the NHS in Wales, which will address the question of staff retention, particularly in the area of equipment management.
  272

  WTE as at 30 September

  Health Authority

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Clwyd

  5·0

  4·0

  4·0

  3·0

  East Dyfed1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  2·0

  2·0

  4·0

  3·0

  Mid Glamorgan1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pembs1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  37·0

  37·0

  34·0

  32·0

  West Glamorgan

  11·0

  10·8

  12·8

  15·7

  Wales

  55·0

  53·8

  54·8

  53·7

  1 Medical physics services for these authorities are provided by the relevant departments in the four authorities which do employ medical physicists.

  Water Shortages
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list in the Official Report the outstanding capital projects and their estimated cost throughout Wales proposed by the Welsh water authority which plan to alleviate dry weather water shortages; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report, for each of the years since 1979 and giving their cost, all those capital projects of the Welsh water authority which have been initiated to guard against water shortages as a consequence of dry weather;

  (3) if he will list those areas in Wales where water supply levels give cause for concern; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make a statement concerning water shortages in Wales consequent upon the current heat wave and the Welsh water authority's banning of water hoses and sprinklers in all areas.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. This is a matter for the Welsh water authority.

ENVIRONMENT

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the effectiveness of the Government television advertising campaign on unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In a survey conducted during the week commencing 21 April, 60 per cent. of those interviewed, when prompted, were aware of the advertisement. This put it in the top 10 TV advertisements most remembered by the public.

  The advertisements ran from 1 to 14 April and were shown on all commercial TV stations in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 76 per cent. of all adults had the opportunity to see them at least once and 33 per cent. at least four times. On average the target audience of all motorists responsible for purchasing petrol had four opportunities to see the advertisement.

  The unleaded petrol share of the market has increased dramatically from 6·4 per cent. in March to 19·3 per cent. in May.

  Teesside UDC (Jobs)
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been created within the Teesside urban development corporation zone since its inception; how many jobs were created as a consequence of the direct intervention of the corporation; and what has been the cost per job.

  Mr. Trippier
  Comprehensive figures on the total number of jobs created within the Teesside development corporation area since its inception are not readily available. The corporation estimates, however, that up to the end of March 1989, 1,459 permanent jobs had been created within the UDA, in projects assisted by the corporation, at a cost per job of £984. The Government also have two task forces and an action team contributing to the regeneration of inner cities on Teesside, and unemployment in the 15 wards within the Teesside DC zone has fallen by over one third in the two years since May 1987.

  All Souls Burial Ground, Halifax
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to reply to queries about the closure of All Souls burial ground raised by the parochial church council of All Souls Living Church council, Haley hill, Halifax, on 3 May 1988, 23 September 1988, 14 March 1989 and 16 May 1989; and why it is still waiting for a reply.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department replied on 22 June. I very much regret the long delay in replying due to an oversight which has now been rectified.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of the minority language versions of the community charge leaflet, "The Community Charge (The So-called Poll Tax): How It Will Work For You."

  Mr. Gummer
  Translations in eight languages are being produced, in initial print runs of 10,000 each. The total cost is estimated at £40,000 approximately.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of poll tax registration by local authorities, with reference to support facilities provided by his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  Community charges registration officers (CCROs) have until 1 December 1989 to compile their registers. I believe that most CCROs are making good progress. To assist CCROs and authorities with implementation generally, the Department has issued 18 practice notes, and laid the regulations as soon as was practicable after the enactment of the primary legislation.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he intends to issue any further advice to community charge registration officers on the information which can be properly sought through community charge registration forms;

  (2) if he intends to issue a leaflet to every household in England and Wales informing potential poll tax payers of their precise rights and duties in completing registration forms;
  274
  (3) if he will make a statement on action that should be taken by individuals who are asked by community charge registration officers to answer non-statutory questions on their community charge registration forms;

  (4) what steps he is taking to monitor the information being requested by community charge registration officers as a part of the registration process in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: The Department has given clear and explicit advice to local authorities and community charges registration officers on this matter, and, in conjunction with the local authority associations, issued a model registration form last autumn. It is for registration officers to ensure that their requests for information comply with their statutory powers and the Data Protection Act.

  Registration officers may require only such information as is necessary for them to carry out their statutory functions, which are to compile and maintain the register. Advice on the information that needs to be sought from the public in order to compile the register was provided to registration officers in community charge practice note number 3. Advice on the requirements of the Data Protection Act is contained in community charge practice notes numbers 4 and 10 which deal specifically with the data protection aspects of registration, and the need to register as a data user. Practice note number 8 contains the model registration form, and advises registration officers to ensure that any requests for information additional to that needed for registration purposes should be clearly indicated, so that people would know that they did riot have to supply it. Practice note number 16, on joint and several liability, specifically points out that joint and several liability is not a registration matter, and advises against including questions on relationships on registration forms.

  Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to his counterpart Ministers in the EEC concerning the shooting and trapping of protected bird species during migration; and if he will seek to persuade them to enforce in full the provisions of the appropriate European legislation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 22 June 1987]: The EC directive 79/409 EEC on the conservation of wild birds requires all member states to protect migratory and other birds. The Government fully support the directive and its enforcement. It is the responsibility of the EC Commission to ensure that adequate measures are taken.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the effect on recovery by Barlow Clowes investors in the United Kingdom of last Friday's High Court ruling authorising the transfer of funds from the British-based to the Gibraltar-based operation.

  Mr. Maude
  It is too soon to make any such assessment.
  275
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to be able to provide sufficient information about the Barlow Clowes collapse to make a full statement to the House.

  Mr. Maude
  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is currently considering the role of my Department in this matter. In addition, there are a number of actions before the courts. It is too soon to say when all these matters will be resolved.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there are any outstanding requests from the ombudsman to his Department in connection with the cases currently under investigation by him arising out of the Barlow Clowes collapse.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department is co-operating fully with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and endeavours to respond to all his inquiries as quickly as possible.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctic (Protection)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 143, what appraisal he has made of the possible effects on the ecology of the Antarctic as a result of the passage of the Antarctic Minerals Bill.

  Mr. Eggar
  We believe that the Antarctic minerals convention provides protection of the Antarctic environment of a very high order. Its entry into force will protect the Antarctic environment against uncontrolled minerals exploitation. We are proceeding with the Antarctic Minerals Bill to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 143, what steps he is taking to negotiate specific treaty obligations to protect the Antarctic in the event of an oil spill or blowout.

  Mr. Eggar
  Control of marine pollution and therefore of oil spills in Antarctica is on the agenda of the XV Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Paris in October.

  There can be no oil exploration in Antarctica, and therefore no blowouts, until the Antarctic minerals convention comes into force and a liability protocol has been negotiated and has itself entered into force. The convention contains strict safeguards for the protection of the Antarctic environment, and requires that no minerals activity can take place until the capacity exists to respond effectively to accidents.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the moves, in which the United Kingdom is participating being taken to oppose a return of the Khmer Rouge army in Cambodia.

  Mr. Eggar
  The surest way to prevent the Khmer Rouge returning to power by force is a political settlement 276
  under which Cambodians can freely elect a Government of their choice. We are actively involved in international efforts to achieve such a settlement, both multilaterally and in bilateral contacts with those most closely concerned.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the projected public expenditure savings arising from the introduction of a central DNA testing scheme for those seeking entry clearance to the United Kingdom; and if he will identify the savings to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  We need practical experience of the numbers who will be processed under the scheme to judge what, if any, resource savings may be achievable. The scheme will be voluntary and take-up will vary from post to post. The position will be closely monitored.

  Foreign Service Staff (Children's Education)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many independent boarding schools are accepted by his Department as suitable to receive grant payment for the education of children employed by the foreign service; how many children are currently in receipt of this financal assistance; how often members of his Department visit the schools to satisfy themselves about the education and the welfare provided for young people; and how often financial assistance has been withdrawn because a school has failed to meet the required criteria,

  (2) what criteria are used for judging the quality and academic achievements of independent boarding schools before agreeing to provide finance for members of the foreign service wishing to have their children educated at these schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I explained in my written answer of 16 June at column 562, diplomatic service staff may receive an allowance to send their children to any registered independent boarding school in the United Kingdom, provided it offers the full range of subjects normally offered by a state day school and in a form generally available in the state system. Within that broad range parents accept responsibility for choosing a school whose record of accomplishments appears to suit the requirements and capabilities of their children. All such schools will have been approved by the Department of Education and Science and will be inspected periodically by one of Her Majesty's inspectors. We have neither the expertise nor the resources to duplicate the work of that Department.

  Allowances are currently paid in respect of 881 children attending a total of 355 schools. There has never been a case of allowances being withdrawn as a result of a school's performance.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when instructions were sent to the British embassy in Islamabad to issue a visa to Mr. Zahood Ahmed to enter the United Kingdom; when Mr. Ahmed, whose date of birth is 22 July 1967 and whose Home Office reference is A412361, first applied for entry
  277
  clearance; when Mr. Ahmed's appeal against refusal to grant him a visa was upheld; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 June 1989 c. 310]: In accordance with the recent guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit in due course.

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

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 June 1989, c. 310]: Mr. Khan applied for an entry clearance at the embassy in Islamabad on 18 November 1987. His application was refused on 25 September 1988 and the embassy received an appeal from him on 10 November 1988. I regret that due to pressure of work at the embassy the explanatory statement has not yet been despatched. It is, however, nearing completion and will be forwarded to the appellate authority very shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Community
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what benefits have been brought to(a) Doncaster and (b) South Yorkshire from membership of the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  The European regional development fund has made grants during the last four years of some £53 million to South Yorkshire, of which about £11 million went to Doncaster. Low interest loans worth £750,000 for Doncaster and £13 million for South Yorkshire have been obtained from the European Coal and Steel Community. In the last three years the European social fund made grants of some £1·65 million to Doncaster, within £11·4 million for South Yorkshire as a whole.

  Ivory
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 20 June Official Report, column 78, when she returned from Zimbabwe; when the articles were deposited with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; whether an import licence under CITES was applied for in respect of these items; when she decided that they should be retained by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; on what date and by what means she informed Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of her decision; if she will describe the three items of silver and ivory jewellery and state a valuation of each item; and whether she took any steps to determine the origin and the legality of the ivory contained in the ivory jewellery.

  The Prime Minister
  I returned from Africa on 2 April 1989. I deposited the articles with Her Majesty's Customs 278
  and Excise as soon as I was informed that the requirements for importation had not been completed. I have nothing further to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 20 June.

  Israel
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister whether at her recent meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister she asked him whether he accepted Security Council restriction 242.

  The Prime Minister
  During my talks with Mr. Shamir, I stressed that, to be successful, negotiations on a middle east settlement must be held on the basis of territory for peace as called for in resolution 242. Mr. Shamir has not so far given any commitment on this point.

  Malaysia
  Miss. Lestor
  To ask the Prime Minister who indicated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they would consider a request from the Malaysian Government for overseas aid, contained in correspondence concerning the sale of arms to Malaysia that preceded the signing of the memorandum of understanding in 1988; and what period of time elapsed before Her Majesty's Government stated that it would not be acceptable to link aid with the defence sales package.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: The Government made clear to the Malaysian Government on a number of occasions in 1988 that we were most willing to consider Malaysian requests for aid. However, as indicated in the answer given to the hon. Member on 13 June by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear in his letter to the Malaysian Finance Minister of 28 June 1988 that the provision of overseas aid as an integral part of a negotiated agreement on the defence package was not possible.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what advice he has received concerning the cost of a recommended diet for people with AIDS or HIV infection; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of the current underprovision of benefit for a person on income support who has been recommended a diet for someone with AIDS or HIV infection who (a) does and (b) does not qualify for a disability premium;

  (3) what is his estimate of the double provision a person on supplementary benefit before April 1988 would have received if he had been awarded the full cost of a recommended diet for someone with AIDS or HIV infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The supplementary benefit scale rates did not include a specific amount for food. It was for individuals to decide how best to spend their money in the light of their own needs and preferences. The same is true of income support. The estimates requested cannot therefore be made.

  I am aware that people with AIDS are frequently advised to follow a high protein, high calorie diet. I have

  279
  been advised that a diet giving 150 per cent. of normal protein and calorie requirements can be devised to meet the needs of individual patients. Such a diet was costed at £14·19 per week (1986 prices) in an article by MacDonald and Forsythe from St. James' university hospital, Leeds, which was published in "Human Nutrition: Applied Nutrition" in 1986.

  I am also aware that people with HIV infection, but who are otherwise healthy, are advised to follow a healthy eating plan which is simply a normal balanced diet. Such a diet was costed by Macdonald and Forsythe in their article at £9·46 for a moderately active man.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the normal level of state pension available to(a) a single male and (b) a married couple in each European Community country for those aged 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80 years who have no private resources or pension including social security payments unrelated to living condition, but related to age subsequent to the increases in benefit about to be made available.

  Mr. Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1988)", a copy of which is in the Library. These tables set out the levels of pension in the national currencies together with the sterling equivalent converted according to the OECD's purchasing power parity figures as shown in the introduction to the tables.

  Community Care Grants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the success rate in obtaining community care grants in the offices covering the Peckham constituency for applicants(a) assisted and (b) not assisted by an advice worker.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Social Fund
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why the budget for social fund loans and grants in the offices covering the Peckham constituency was not increased in the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A note explaining the basis of allocation of social fund budgets to local offices for 1989–90 is in the Library. The allocation formula was applied in exactly the same way to all local offices.

HEALTH

  NHS Beds (Occupation)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of National Health Service beds are occupied by people over 70 years of age.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information available centrally is that in 1987–88, 53 per cent. of NHS beds were occupied by patients aged 65 years and over, and 34 per cent. by patients aged 75 years and over.

  Bristol Channel (Bathing Waters)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received about illness caused to individuals from bathing in coastal waters on either side of the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware at present of any reports of any adverse effects to health caused by bathing in coastal waters in the Bristol channel.

  Liver and Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest position in relation to the shortage of blood for liver and kidney transplants.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was a temporary shortage of blood following the late May bank holiday. There has now been an excellent response from donors, and national stocks are again sufficient for all operations to go ahead.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to instigate any new studies into the nature and incidence of post-abortion syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We await the report of a joint Royal College of General Practitioners/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists study "Attitudes to Pregnancy". A large body of data from this United Kingdom study, which was funded by the Department, is currently undergoing careful analysis. I understand that the report should be available later this year.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of non-National Health Service abortions performed in each gestational week according to licensed clinic in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the readily available data. Details relating to numbers performed by individual licensed clinics cannot be released for reasons of confidentiality.

  Number of abortions performed in non-NHS premises by gestation week to usual residents of England and Wales, 1987 and 1988

  Gestation weeks

  1987 Non-NHS

  1Of which agency

  1988 Non-NHS

  1Of which agency

  Under 9

  38,879

  2,283

  42,387

  2,709

  9–12

  35,637

  4,346

  42,544

  5,096

  13–14

  4,493

  539

  4,940

  597

  15–16

  2,430

  258

  2,795

  277

  17–18

  2,659

  384

  3,237

  436

  19–20

  1,446

  189

  1,766

  196

  21–22

  779

  31

  1,007

  27

  23–24

  413

  9

  510

  15

  25+

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Not stated

  11

  2

  9

  4

  Total

  86,749

  8,041

  99,195

  9,357

  1 These figures represent the operations carried out in the private sector on NHS patients.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to women about the risks of abortion to their mental and physical health; and if he will make a statement.
  281
  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the clinical judgment of the medical staff involved in the light of all the relevant facts about the woman's condition.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest medical evidence available to him as to the earliest gestation age at which an unborn child may be capable of being born alive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 22nd gestational week is considered by doctors to be the earliest time that there is the slightest possibility of a foetus being born alive, since before then the lungs are not mature enough to function even if ventilated. Between the 22nd and 24th week of gestation the chance of being born alive and the chance of surviving afterwards increase, but up to 24 weeks both are rare. Whether or not any particular foetus is capable of being born alive must be a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned in the full knowledge of the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the procedure adopted by his Department in checking and approving abortion notification forms.

  Mr. Freeman
  All operating doctors are required to notify the chief medical officer, within seven days, of each abortion they perform. The detailed information in these forms is scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he received in 1987 and 1988, respectively, on(a) abortion and (b) human embryo experimentation; how many were hostile to each of these practices; and what percentage the latter represents of the former.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987 and 1988 we received some 9,000 representations about abortion issues and 500 about human embryo experimentation. Most were from members of the public and the views expressed varied widely. Any analysis on the lines requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the circumstances in the national blood transfusion service that has caused the recent cancellation of operations and on the action he is now taking to prevent a repetition of such circumstances.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recent shortage of blood which led to the postponement of a small number of operations in some regions arose primarily because blood donors were not coming forward in sufficient numbers to maintain supplies.

  The fine weather, bank holidays, and transport striked contributed to the fall in numbers of donations.

  The national directorate of the blood transfusion service will be improving its monitoring of blood stocks
  282
  and donor attendances so that timely steps can he taken to encourage donors to attend blood donor sessions in the future.

  The temporary shortage of blood following the late May bank holiday has now been corrected.

  SERCO/Capita plc
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he or his Department have had any representations from, or meetings with, SERCO plc; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent meetings he or his Department had with Capita plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The director of NHS procurement, Mr. Tom Critchley, has had two meetings in March and May with the director of Capita Health Care group to discuss the services which that company, in collaboration with SERCO plc, is prepared to offer by way of facilities management or technical and non-clinical support services to the NHS. The meetings were part of a wider series of meetings which Mr. Critchley and officials from the NHS procurement directorate have had with a number of service companies able and ready to bid for NHS site management contracts covering a range of different support services. By way of explanation I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 9.11 of the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Venereal Disease
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest figures for venereal disease as a total and then disease by disease; and if he will give an indication of the trends in this group of diseases.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table. This relates to new cases seen at NHS genito-urinary medicine clinics over the last 10 years. Not all patients seen at clinics have conditions which are sexually transmitted, and some do not require treatment. Some patients have more than one condition, and are counted under each condition found. Discernible trends over the last ten years are:

  (a) The total number of new cases seen in clinics has been increasing steadily in recent years until 1987, when it fell by over 25,00 compared with 1986. This was the first time since 1962 that the number had declined. The main components of the increase were non-specific genital infection, herpes, wart virus, and candidiosis in women. However, cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea have been declining.

  (b) Since 1977 the incidence of syphilis has declined by 64 per cent. and gonorrhoea by 57 per cent. Gonorrhoea has been declining more rapidly, particularly among males aged 35 to 44, since about 1982, but there was a very marked fall in both male and female cases between 1986 and 1987. This is probably due to changes in sexual behaviour following the publicity about AIDS.

  (c) The number of new cases of herpes increased rapidly until 1985, but declined slightly in 1986 and again in 1987.

  (d) The number of new cases of genital warts has continued to increase at a rapid rate and now accounts for 12 per cent. of all new cases seen.

  283

  New cases seen at NHS genito urinary medicine clinics, England, 1977 to 1987, 1987–88

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1987–88

  Syphilis

  4,266

  4,375

  4,001

  4,059

  3,810

  3,564

  3,327

  2,933

  2,404

  1,932

  1,538

  1,463

  Gonorrhoea

  58,734

  56,673

  55,062

  54,433

  52,200

  52,156

  48,393

  47,662

  46,314

  40,705

  25,265

  22,884

  Chancroid

  43

  52

  42

  54

  91

  125

  80

  40

  61

  47

  39

  44

  Lymphogranuloma venereum

  34

  26

  30

  28

  40

  30

  36

  30

  30

  42

  15

  16

  Granuloma inguinale

  17

  11

  30

  20

  25

  15

  21

  19

  17

  20

  27

  22

  Non specific genital infection

  95,491

  98,390

  102,390

  114,306

  120,018

  128,197

  134,079

  139,352

  149,524

  157,792

  131,383

  125,973

  Non specific genital infection with arthritis

  496

  457

  456

  544

  583

  501

  462

  428

  487

  504

  533

  571

  Trichomoniasis

  20,051

  19,781

  19,511

  20,641

  20,224

  20,162

  18,274

  16,751

  15,381

  14,041

  10,658

  9,889

  Candidiasis

  38,090

  39,564

  39,700

  44,604

  46,947

  52,404

  57,876

  59,668

  60,517

  63,108

  59,768

  58,817

  Scabies

  2,185

  2,186

  2,076

  2,288

  2,145

  2,044

  2,192

  2,043

  2,015

  1,742

  1,365

  1,224

  Pubic lice

  6,058

  6,778

  7,478

  7,966

  8,718

  9,799

  9,093

  10,183

  9,859

  9,333

  6,920

  6,628

  Herpes simplex

  7,722

  8,406

  8,854

  10,043

  11,147

  13,653

  16,534

  18,301

  18,935

  18,800

  16,699

  16,510

  Warts

  22,766

  24,136

  24,490

  28,176

  29,704

  33,343

  37,899

  44,050

  52,177

  67,068

  74,542

  74,655

  Molluscum contagiosum

  930

  964

  968

  1,153

  1,212

  1,378

  1,574

  1,928

  2,195

  2,820

  3,228

  3,140

  Other treponemal diseases

  1,107

  1,080

  1,086

  923

  878

  833

  745

  658

  592

  526

  532

  471

  Other conditions requiring treatment

  42,437

  46,431

  49,555

  59,963

  67,842

  79,019

  90,817

  100,213

  109,318

  119,460

  111,667

  108,172

  Other conditions not requiring treatment

  95,537

  99,268

  99,813

  107,123

  111,407

  117,127

  121,900

  120,951

  130,162

  143,092

  168,556

  155,527

  Other conditions referred elsewhere

  1,749

  2,133

  2,242

  2,655

  2,933

  3,318

  4,135

  4,718

  5,318

  6,327

  7,531

  7,719

  Grand total, all conditions

  397,713

  410,711

  417,784

  458,979

  479,924

  517,668

  547,437

  569,928

  605,306

  647,359

  620,266

  593,725

EMPLOYMENT

  Social Measures (EC)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East on 14 June,Official Report, column 909, if he will list the issues which the Commission proposes to deal with in social measures related to the European Economics Community and the draft directives issued to date; and if he will seek the guidance of the Commission on what social issues it will be presenting directives on the basis of majority voting.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: The European Commission has put forward a preliminary draft proposal for a "Community charter of fundamental social rights", which it proposes should be adopted as a solemn declaration of the 12 heads of state and Government. The preliminary draft proposal invites the Commission to draw up a programme of work by June 1990. A copy of the preliminary draft has been deposited in the Library, and an explanatory memorandum has been provided to the Select Committee on European Legislation. The preliminary draft is not based on any article of the treaty and is proposed as a political statement.

  The following draft legislation proposals, which have not yet been agreed, have been issued to date:
  draft directive on procedures for informing and consulting employees in complex undertakings;
  draft directive concerning temporary work;
  draft directive on voluntary part-time work;
  draft recommendation on the reduction and reorganisation of working time;
  draft directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons;
  284
  draft directive on the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment for men and women;
  draft directive amending directive 68/360/EEC on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of member states and their families.
  draft directive concerning the minimum health and safety requirements for work with visual display units.

  Whether the voting arrangements for specific proposals are based on simple majority, qualified majority or unanimity depends on the subject matter and the article(s) of the treaty of Rome on which they are based. The proposed treaty base is indicated on draft legislation.

  In addition, in the area of health and safety at work, there are:
  draft directive concerning the minimum health and safety requirements for the workplace;
  draft directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to machinery;
  draft directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to personal protective equipment;
  draft directive on the minimum health and safety requirements for handling heavy loads when there is a risk of back injury for workers.

DEFENCE

  Type 23 Frigate
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the new command system for the type 23 frigate programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 6 June at column 124.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

The Economy
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the state of the economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the UK economy is performing very well. It is now well into the eighth successive year of sustained growth, at an annual average rate of over 3 per cent. Investment in 1988 was the highest ever recorded as a percentage of national income. Manufacturing productivity has risen during the 1980s faster than in any other major industralised country.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, one can believe anything if one believes that. Does the Minister recall that when we on this side of the House complain about the high level of unemployment we are constantly told that the number of unemployed is falling every month and that that is an indication of the success of the Government's policies? The Prime Minister and the Chancellor as recently as last week repeated—and I quote—that the Government's overriding objective is to bring inflation down. But inflation has been rising now for more than a year and we have been told that it will continue rising until the spring of next year. Can we therefore assume, in the light of the Government's own top priority and their own criterion, that in fact their economic policies are a miserable failure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. With regard to the noble Lord's first point about unemployment, the figure is now well below 2 million. Unemployment has fallen continuously for 34 months in a row by over 1.25 million. The fall in unemployment is the longest and largest since the war. Combating inflation must remain the Government's top priority and that is why interest rates stand where they are.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in replying to the Question about the economy, his Answer that everything is fine and on course has somewhat shattered some noble Lords? If that is so, can he explain the results of last Thursday? Does he recognise that high mortgage rates are destroying the hopes and dreams of the party opposite and can he say when it is likely that ordinary people who are buying their own homes will have a better chance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course one regrets the extra burden that is placed on home buyers through interest rates. However, higher inflation
414
would be much more damaging. I do not accept the forecast quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand that inflation will continue to rise until next spring. I believe that we shall see a fall before then.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of his supporters would be very disappointed if he were to be satisfied with the state of the economy? There is always room for improvement. He has done an excellent job as a member of a government that have produced the results that he has outlined. One could never satisfactorily answer the deliberate political dissatisfaction that the other side feels it is its duty to express.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his encouraging remarks.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, we understand from the Minister's initial Answer that in fact the Government are well satisfied with the economy. But does he agree that that is a little complacent? There have been some improvements, particularly for those at the top of the pile, but are the Government really satisfied with the rate of unemployment coupled with the distribution of the increased wealth and inflation? Is it not time that they found some new remedies as clearly the current ones are failing to deal with what most people consider to be a rather unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, all regions in the country have benefited from the fall in unemployment. Long-term unemployment has fallen faster than unemployment as a whole, and fallen in all the regions. So far as concerns the Government's policies, their position is plain: interest rates will be kept as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to reduce inflation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has expressed the Government's satisfaction. Are he and his noble friends satisfied with a situation in which this country finds itself with an increasing trade deficit presently running at over £15 billion a year? Is he genuinely satisfied with a situation in which, in order to retain short-term funds in this country to cover the deficit, the Government are being forced to put up interest rates which now cost our industry and commerce an extra annual sum of £2·5 billion? Will the Minister confirm his satisfaction with that imbalance? Does he countenance the continued incursion of overseas goods into our own markets by the steady increase in import penetration?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the main reason for the deficit is the surge in investment in the United Kingdom which has not been matched by an increase in saving. Capital has therefore been invested from abroad with the current account deficit as the inevitable counterpart. It may encourage noble Lords to know that only one quarter of the growth in the value of manufactured imports between 1987 and 1988 was accounted for by consumer goods, with the remainder, fully

415
three-quarters, made up of goods for production and investment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied with a position where, in order to increase investment in our own industries, we are no longer capable of producing goods ourselves but have to import them from abroad?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, manufacturing investment in this country grew by 4.5 per cent. last year to reach its highest ever level. Our manufacturing output in the first quarter of this year was at its highest ever level. I hope that the noble Lord will be encouraged by those figures.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Euro elections and the by-elections indicate that people believe that we are entering into a grave summer of discontent? It behoves all of us to prevent any serious damage to the economy. We must never do what the Conservative Party did in 1979 when the Labour Government resisted what they called irrational demands. They received no support from the Tories. The Tories used the situation as a political excuse to damage the Labour Party and the country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I feel that the results of the election in 1979 and the subsequent record-breaking levels achieved by the economy speak for themselves.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would not the noble Lord be well advised to take a rather more prudent and balanced view of the economic situation and to tell both sides of the story? Is it not the case, as my noble friend Lord Bruce has said, that the trade deficit is likely to be a record figure in our history? Does that not mean that we are living well beyond our means? What will the Government do about it?
Has the noble Lord noted that the CBI has said that a further increase in interest rates would be most profoundly damaging to British industry? These are factors that the Government must take into account. Will the noble Lord advise us what they will do about these matters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not accept that we are living well above our means, as the noble Lord has put it. We are in a situation with a budget surplus of record-breaking proportions. Interest rates will have to remain as high as is necessary to bear down on inflation. Inflation is more damaging to industry than high interest rates.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not the slightest surprised that in his Answer to me he should underplay the Government's failure to control inflation? However, will he confirm that our present rate is 8.3 per cent? Will he confirm that the average of the Group of Seven is 4.4 per cent? How does he explain the difference when this is the country that has performed the economic miracle?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the current underlying inflation rate, excluding mortgage interest payments, is considerably below the overall RPI. It is currently 6 per cent. It is still too high. That is why our main priority is to reduce it. It is lower at the moment than in any month under the previous Labour Government and compares with their average rate of over 15 per cent. and a peak of 27 per cent.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in 1978 the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party called a press conference to celebrate the fact that inflation was down to 9 per cent.? If that was a cause for celebration, why are we now complaining about a rate of inflation of 8.3 per cent.?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the Minister remember that in 1974—the last time that his party left this country in a mess—the Labour Government were given a balance of payments deficit of £3·5 billion to deal with? The deficit is now £16 billion. Can he tell us the approximate size of deficit that in a year or two he will be asking the next Labour Government to clear up?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I fear that that question is unlikely to arise.

Deer Welfare
11.18 a.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on deer and factory farming.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government believe that, whatever the husbandry system employed, the welfare of the animals must be safeguarded. Following advice from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, we have recently made a welfare code for deer. This will give practical guidance to those keeping deer on how to ensure that they are properly looked after.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her helpful and constructive reply. Is she aware that it is now proposed to factory farm red deer in order to provide venison for supermarkets? Is it not an outrage to confine such sensitive and essentially wild creatures in conditions similar to those for pigs? Will the Government intervene to put a stop to it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is always a pleasure for me to reply to supplementary questions asked by my noble friend the Monarch of the Glen. The Ministry's veterinary staff have already been

417
asked to check on welfare should any system of continuous deer housing be employed. There are two farms where deer are known to be loose housed or have been loose housed during winter months. The state veterinary service knows of these premises and is monitoring them. No welfare problem has been found. I do not consider that this amounts to factory farming.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Monarch of the Glen knows as much about agriculture as the Queen of Sheba knows about the arts? Will she have a look at the Walford College of Agriculture in Shropshire where experiments are being carried out in this vein?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, speaking from a queenly position, the Government believe that all husbandry systems have advantages and disadvantages. It is not sensible to abolish the intensive system until better alternatives have been developed. We have set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council to provide independent advice on these matters. In any event, it is never in the farmer's interest to mistreat his animals. However, I shall certainly pass on the remarks of my noble friend.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I hate to break in to these exchanges between the Monarch of the Glen and the Queen of Sheba; but is this not a wholly abhorrent proposal? I must say that I have not heard of it before, but whatever precautions are taken about the welfare of deer in factory farming, the very idea of factory farming deer must be wholly abhorrent and should in my view be forbidden.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I have answered to the best of my ability the Government's position on factory farming. It is perfectly true to say that farmed deer can become very tame. However I shall pass on the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, why are the noble Baroness and the Ministry so relaxed, as it seems from recent parliamentary Answers, to the whole issue of the abattoir slaughter of deer? That is a procedure which most of us find absolutely abhorrent. Has she not in recent parliamentary Answers to me indicated, first, that there may be breaches in this voluntary code, and that it should be made statutory? Has she not revealed also that there are possible other infringements which have been noted, and that there are not enough veterinary inspectors in her Ministry to make sure that the code is enforced? Does not the Ministry need to be shaken up on this issue? As a first step, should it not make this voluntary code into a statutory code?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government agreed with the Farm Animal Welfare Council's view that providing certain statutory safeguards are introduced, the welfare of deer can be satisfactorily protected. Until specific welfare legislation can be introduced, the Government have asked abattoir owners and deer farmers to observe a voluntary code of practice on abattoir slaughter.
418
The state veterinary service monitors deer slaughter operations.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in view of the consultations that are about to begin concerning the welfare of livestock in general at slaughter, can the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that the welfare of deer at slaughter will be given special attention, and if necessary priority? As an interim measure, will the Government consider making it necessary for the slaughter of deer to take place at EC approved abattoirs, thus ensuring the presence of a qualified veterinarian?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we shall certainly be looking after the welfare of deer, as indeed we look after the welfare of all animals. I repeat that it is not in owners' interests to ill-treat deer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ask her right honourable friend to seek the guidance and help of the British Veterinary Association in this matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the British Veterinary Association is already fully involved in this matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, are deer farms licensed, and do they have a licence to sell venison? Is it not a fact that if these animals are living in an unnatural environment, such as a factory farm, they develop more diseases than they would if they were in wild habitation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, any system of farming can increase the risks of Infectious or contagious diseases spreading among animals. However, these can be offset by adopting sound farming practices.

ECOFIN: Fraud Control Proposals
11.24 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they made to the EC Economic and Financial Council on 19th June regarding measures to combat fraud against Community funds; what were the specific reactions of other member states to these proposals; and what decisions were made by ECOFIN as a result.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Economic and Financial Council of 19th June had a constructive discussion of fraud against the Community Budget. In particular, the council endorsed the Commission's 45 point work programme for fighting fraud and called for early action on the Commission's proposals to tighten controls in export refunds and intervention storage. The UK played a major role in achieving the progress that has been made.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply which only answers the last part of my Question. My Question, as your Lordships will know, asked what proposals Her Majesty's Government put before ECOFIN and also asked what were the reactions of the other members. The noble Lord has not answered those questions at all.
Is the noble Lord aware that in the view of many Her Majesty's Government, ever since the matter was brought to their attention some 18 months ago, have taken a very casual attitude towards the whole issue of fraud. Are we entitled to expect that in the future they will take a far more vigorous and constructive part and tell Parliament exactly what they are doing to prevent the fraud, amounting at present to some £2 billion a year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I deny that the Government are taking a casual attitude to this matter. We have achieved a great deal of what we wanted to see at the ECOFIN meeting which followed from the March ECOFIN, in which the United Kingdom played a leading role. We tabled a wide range of proposals for combating fraud which was well received. The Council made a unanimous declaration which incorporated our major ideas. The June ECOFIN consolidated the progress in ways reflecting the United Kingdom ideas. In particular the Commission announced a detailed work programme for fighting fraud and proposals were announced on tightening controls in export refunds and intervention storage, exactly as the United Kingdom had asked.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who took an initiative—I think about 12 months ago—but she did not receive support from any of the other member governments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, the Government certainly do not have a casual attitude to that matter. The whole Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, including my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, take this matter extremely seriously.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, have any prosecutions been brought in respect of frauds on Community funds? If not why not? If they have been brought, before what court and with what consequence?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that of course is a matter for the Commission. I believe that there have been prosecutions, but I shall have to look into the matter and write to the noble and learned Lord with the details.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for being the third member of the Front Bench to ask a question, but that may be forgiven on a Friday morning. Does the noble Lord recall that on 13th April we debated the report of the Select Committee of this House into the whole question of fraud in the Community? Does he recall that our committee
420
made several very important recommendations? One of the most important was the amending of the duties of the Committee of Auditors. Can the noble Lord say whether any of those recommendations of our committee has been implemented, because the Government spokesman at the time said that they commended these recommendations and supported them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have a detailed list of the recommendations which your Lordships' committee made at that time. The proposals which the UK suggested, and which were accepted, comprised a timetable of proposals in the field of export refunds and intervention storage. The Commission tabled that at ECOFIN on 19th June and there were a series of other United Kingdom-inspired measures which were accepted.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if we are talking about Community funds and fraud, can the Minister assure me that included in the investigations will be how much these members receive? That's a bit of a lark, isn't it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain that that matter actually falls within the remit of this investigation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in conclusion, can the noble Lord state what steps the Government are taking to increase the resources available to HM Customs and Excise and to the Fraud Squad so that we in this country may set an example to the rest of Europe in rigorously pursuing all these questions of fraud which arise within the territories of member states and do not arise in the Commission itself?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: So far as what we are doing at home is concerned, the Commission wants 5 per cent. of consignments eligible for export refunds to be checked. Our Customs already checks 7 per cent., which is in excess of the requirement. We already concentrate checks on high risk consignments and products. Additional training has been given to 4,000 officers by the Customs and Excise, and CAP liaison officers have been appointed to improve the flow of information concerning CAP fraud.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is a coherent Community policy with regard to the courts which have jurisdiction to prosecute such offences?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble and learned friend's question. I shall write to him.

Passport Applications: Processing Delays
11.30 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the present average delays in handling applications for British passports by post at the passport offices in London and Glasgow.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, passport applications are processed according to the applicant's travel requirements, with priority being given to urgent cases. As a result, delay times in a given period vary considerably and averages are not recorded. The maximum processing time at present for straightforward non-urgent postal application at the London passport office is 36 working days and at Glasgow 55 working days. Most applications are processed well within these periods.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It is good news that a settlement may be near, but what action can be taken to restore the situation? Can he estimate how long it will take to eliminate the present delays because the holiday plans of thousands of citizens are still at risk?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government wish to apologise for any inconvenience caused to those who wish to travel abroad but who have been delayed by not receiving a passport. It is not easy to answer precisely my noble friend's question, but an offer has been put to the unions and we hope that a settlement will be achieved shortly. However, I am bound to say that, even if the present industrial action is immediately called off, there is little prospect of a return to a normal passport issuing service until the end of the summer peak.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that members of the public will have noted the courtesy of the Minister in apologising, but does he believe that it is likely to restore their ruffled and almost tortured feelings about the delays which have taken place? Is it not a fact that there has now been offered to a reasonable union acting for the employees in the passport office an immediate increase of 203 staff, a review of the future staff requirements and an independent inquiry into the computer system and into facilities which are to be improved for both the public and the staff? Were not those proposals made two years ago by the union and repeated in this House? Why must the Government invite strike action before making the present concessions, thus saving the public all the inconvenience?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the passport department managers have proposed to the unions an increase of 203 permanent staff compared with the union claim for 381. That is on condition that the unions co-operate with a number of measures aimed at improving the future handling of the work. The CPSA staff at the Liverpool passport office have voted to accept the offer. However, demand so far this year has risen by 8.4 per cent. on last year's record levels. The manual system of passport production is outdated. Teething troubles with computer systems at Glasgow and Liverpool mean that it is not yet working to full capacity. As all noble Lords know, we are at the peak period for passport applications and we hope that normal service will be resumed as quickly as possible.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the days before the
422
First World War when my father took my mother to the Continent of Europe for their annual holiday they never needed a passport, except for Tsarist Russia? Is he also aware that in about 1945 Mr. Ernest Bevin used these memorable words:
"My idea of a foreign policy is to take a ticket from Victoria station and go where the hell I want"?
Are they not examples greatly to be imitated?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, naturally I was unaware of the circumstances of my noble and learned friend's family. However, as he will appreciate, times have moved on since then.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, my passport comes to an end in October. Can the Minister tell me whether I should send it in now for renewal in order to make sure that I receive it, or is that not allowed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I advise the noble Lord to send his passport for renewal as soon as possible.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the delays in the issuing of passports and the consequent gross inconvenience to the public—which considerably preceded the industrial action taken by the passport office staff—are accentuated by the insistence on the rule that the holder of a perfectly good passport, with plenty of space still left, is compelled to turn it in for destruction and replacement simply because he has held it for 10 years? Is he aware that the situation could be eased substantially if that absurd requirement were dropped?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, a passport must be renewed after a 10-year period for a simple reason. I dare venture to say that, during the passage of time, even the face of my noble friend has changed and will continue to do so. That must be reflected in the form of a new photograph at regular intervals; in other words, every 10 years.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that I asked the same Question two years ago and obtained an answer concerned with photographs. Has he recently looked at his own passport photograph? Is he under the impression that it bears any resemblance whatever to himself? Is not the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perfectly serious? Why can we not have permanent adult passports as we have driving licences?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, sadly, my current passport photograph in no way compares favourably with the photograph taken 10 years ago. For that reason they must be renewed every 10 years.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I should be prepared to sue for defamation anyone who recognised me by my passport photograph? Is he also aware that, if the photograph is so important, a great deal of time and effort would be saved if holders were asked simply

423
to replace the photograph with another while keeping the whole passport and not destroying it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a novel idea of which I had not previously heard. I cannot answer my noble friend at present because the details are probably too complicated. However, I shall consider the question and at a later date I may be able to answer him.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the passport is handed in one will receive not another blue British passport but a limp piece of vermilion plastic? Can he do something about that so that we can retain our traditional blue passport?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is possible to retain the traditional passport. It will end only when computerisation is reached in all six offices throughout the United Kingdom. However, once the new passport is totally established—that is, the limp passport to which my noble friend unfairly referred—it will remain a United Kingdom passport. However, the cover will readily identify my noble friend as a citizen of a European Community country. We shall benefit from moves towards easing frontier formalities in the Community. Most important, when computerised production is fully established, there should be a more efficient issuing system.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has my noble friend observed on his way to the Home Office the long queues stretching round the block from the Passport Office in Petty France, even at 9.00 a.m? That is tangible evidence of the frustration and anxiety now being caused.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have seen those queues myself. Delay in postal applications naturally increases the number of personal callers who may be inquiring about delayed applications, lodging applications or, indeed, collecting passports. The London office deals with about 3,500 personal callers per day. It may also interest your Lordships to know that fire regulations limit the numbers in the hall to 600. Obviously, any excess must wait outside for safety reasons. Queues mainly form before the office opens at nine o'clock.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what the rules are about obtaining a temporary passport from the post office if one is needed very urgently?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is possible to go to a post office and there to obtain a British visitor's passport.

Electricity Bill
11.42 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords,
424
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 LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE in the Chair.]
Clause 78 [Responsibility for composite listing particulars]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232C:
Page 57, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not apply to the Secretary of State and his advisors.").
The noble Lord said: Here we are dealing with Clause 78 which refers to the responsibility for composite listing particulars. It may be worthwhile if I remind the Committee that flotation, when it takes place, will be of a number of companies. The area boards will probably form 12 companies; there will be two Scottish companies, as I understand it, and there will also be two generating companies, as we know them at present. In many of those cases there will be composite listing particulars; in other words, to take the Scottish companies as an example, in their listing particulars they will have a participation in the Scottish nuclear company which is itself a successor company as defined by the Bill. The area boards will have in their listing particulars participation in the National Grid company which is a successor company under the Bill. National Power will have in its accounts a participation in BNFL which, although not a successor company in the terms of the Bill, will nevertheless be an important investment which the company will have to explain to its potential shareholders.
The only company that I can see where there will be no composite listing particulars will be in the case or Power Gen but it may well be that Power Gen will have some holding in other successor companies which I have not yet spotted.
The Financial Services Act makes it quite clear where the responsibility lies for listing particulars. If I may correct the Notes on Clauses, that does not lie with the company.
The Notes on Clauses go on to say that it lies with the company, its directors and any persons who have agreed to become directors. Section 152 does not say that but says that it is the issuer himself or herself, or if the issuer is a company.
In the case of this flotation I believe that we are dealing with a secondary rather than primary issuing of securities. The securities will be held initially by the Secretary of State who will then sell them to the market. That is how I understand the procedure for flotation. It will not be for the companies themselves issuing their own securities on a primary basis to pick up money for their own treasury. The money will go to the Consolidated Fund; in other words, the Government.
Under those circumstances, the issuer is the Secretary of State and, therefore, under Section 152

425
of the Financial Services Act, as the issuer is responsible for the listing particulars it must be the Secretary of State who is responsible. In other words, the Crown has to take responsibility for the listing particulars.
If we move to the composite listing particulars which I have mentioned, the Crown has therefore to take responsibility not only for the listing particulars of one area board but also for the listing particulars of the successor company in which that area board has a holding; namely, the National Grid company. Therefore, the Crown is responsible for both. The same applies to Scotland and the two successor companies which are to be floated: the Crown must take responsibility for the listing particulars not only for the two companies themselves but also for the particulars in respect of their share in the nuclear company. So in the end the Crown will be responsible. Unless it pleads some sort of immunity, which I do not understand, under the Financial Services Act, the Crown will be sued in the event of there being any damage suffered as a result of the listing particulars, as the Financial Services Act prescribes.
The same could and should be said about advisers to the Crown. We know that the Crown has recruited a merchant bank and a broker and other people to compile the listing particulars of the successor companies. In the case of Power Gen those will be simple listing particulars but in the case of all the others, they will be composite listing particulars. It is only right that the advisers to the Crown and to the Secretary of State should be fully responsible for all the information in the listing particulars document because it is on that basis, as the Financial Services Act makes it absolutely clear, that investors are to make their decisions.
I move on further. Section 47 of that Act makes it quite clear that anybody who makes a misleading statement recklessly, deliberately or otherwise is guilty of a criminal offence if it has the effect of inducing an investment transaction. Therefore, these are very serious matters. Unless the protection is enshrined in the Financial Services Act, we believe that Clause 78 should not apply to the Crown and should not apply to the Crown's advisers. They must take responsibility for all listing particulars given in all the documents for all the successor companies to be floated.
If it comes to a criminal prosecution, clearly there will be ramifications which I do not wish to go into. However, I believe that the advisers to the Crown should be absolutely clear that here they are in exactly the same situation as in the case of any issue of any securities on the London Exchange; that is, they must be extremely careful what sort of statements they make. I believe that this is a perfectly simple amendment. Although the drafting may be wrong, I have tried to explain what I mean by it. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I consider that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has raised a very important point here. As a result of this Bill, we must not allow the rules appertaining to responsibility for prospectuses
426
in any way to be relaxed. The fact that the Crown is issuing these prospectuses for sale should in no way mean that the rules of law in that connection should be modified. The wording of the clause to which the noble Lord referred suggests that there could be an exclusion of responsibility for listings. That is how it seems to read. It is important that anyone reading the prospectus should know who is responsible for everything contained in it. In this case it is clearly the Crown and therefore I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I am unable to accept this amendment, but perhaps it would assist the Committee if I set out briefly what Clause 78 is trying to do. Its purpose is to facilitate the use of a composite prospectus, as we all understand it, for the flotation of two or more successor companies.
While the clause applies generally in this way it has been drafted with the 12 supply companies, which we intend should be sold by simultaneous sale, very much in mind. The amendment intends, as was explained, to make the Secretary of State and his advisers responsible for the whole of the prospectus. In past sales the Government have taken reponsibility for defined parts of a prospectus, but it is quite inappropriate for the Government to be responsible for the entire document, much of which will contain information lying within the personal knowledge of directors and personnel of the successor companies rather than the Government.
We believe that it is also wrong to attach responsibility under the Financial Services Act 1986 to an adviser merely because he gives advice: that is a principle clearly recognised in Section 152 of that Act. My understanding of Section 152 is that it provides, in addition to the company and its current and prospective directors, that any person who is stated in the prospectus as accepting responsibility for it, or any part of it, and any person who has authorised the contents of the prospectus, or any part of it, is legally responsible under that Act. We believe that the way in which we intend to go about it is well within that provision; so perhaps I should explain how we believe the clause will operate.
In relation to the supply companies the prospectus will contain information common to all 12 companies. The clause ensures that the prospectus can provide, where appropriate, that the resonsibility for the information relating to any one successor company which is contained in the combined prospectus lies solely with that company and its directors; and indeed, any others responsbile for the listing particulars of that company, as we discussed in Section 152. It is also ensures that those persons are not held responsible for information in the combined prospectus that relates to the other companies. That is clearly not unreasonable. The division of responsibility for the prospectus will be on lines agreed by the Stock Exchange.
I must reiterate that the information in the prospectus—the listing particulars—relates in the main to the companies subject to the offer for sale. Where information relates to other parties, including the Government, they will bear responsibility. That has been the case in all previous sales, as I said, and I can see no reason to depart from that precedent.

427
The Government are in no way shirking responsibility. Of course, we expect that everybody will be extremely careful in providing the correct information. In the light of that reply, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but I have to say that that is the least satisfactory reply she has given to me throughout these Committee proceedings.
This clause may be drafted with respect to the area boards but it affects the Scottish companies. The Scottish companies are successor companies. The nuclear company for Scotland is a successor company. In the case of the SSEB, which is to be floated, there will be two successor companies joined together in composit listing particulars—the SSEB company and the Scottish nuclear company. The Scottish nuclear company will be a major consolidable asset of the SSEB and there is no way to get away from that. Therefore, the directors of SSEB will have to take responsibility for a major consolidable asset; and it is consolidable precisely because the SSEB will own more than 50 per cent. of the nuclear power company.
Secondly, it is certainly true that much of the information will be in the personal knowledge of the directors and not in the knowledge of the Government. However, speaking as an adviser to an issuer, there is a perfectly good procedure which happens every day whereby a merchant bank or a stockbroker makes sure that the directors are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is known as the verification procedure. The noble Baroness, who is a lawyer, should know that lawyers put the directors on notice, go through the minutes of the meeting with them, and ask them to sign verification notes to be absolutely certain that they have told the whole truth. The Government should be doing that, because the Government are the issuers.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness said that the Government's advisers should not be responsible. If they are not responsible—and I differ with her on the interpretation of the Financial Services Act—what on earth are they doing? They are meant to stand behind the Government and say, "We think this is a satisfactory listing particular for this company". They should be absolutely clear that they have to do their verification in exactly the same way as any other adviser.
Finally, the noble Baroness seemed to say that the securities—I did not entirely understand her final sentence—relate to the company offered for sale. I believe that is what she said. Clearly that is right: the securities are shares in the company offered for sale. However, the companies offered for sale are not only the area boards; they are the area boards, the Scottish companies, National Power and Power Gen, so it is the whole lot.
The point about the area boards is significant, which is why my amendment is so relevant. The investment in the grid will be by far the largest single asset that any area board will have. After all the grid has net assets of some £5 billion. In dividing that by
428
12, and even on the most generous basis, one finds that no area board has assets anywhere near its share of the grid. That is why any area board has to put into its listing particulars proper particulars on the grid. It is no good saying that the directors of the area board in question do not know about the grid and therefore can in some way relieve themselves from responsibility for that major asset. It is no answer to say that the directors of the grid can talk about the grid but not about the area boards. Somebody has to take responsibility for the whole thing. I believe that should be the issuer, and the issuer is the Crown and its advisers.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has made an important point. Many people will be reading these prospectuses with a view to putting their savings into these companies. At the very least they must know who is responsible for what they read and take on trust. My understanding, from the rather complex answer given by the noble Baroness, is that various people will be responsible for various parts of the prospectus. I do not find that a very satisfactory situation. I have always assumed that a prospectus is the responsiblity of the issuer and that it is the issuer's job to make sure that everything in the prospectus is valid, proper and could be defended in a court of law.
Baroness Hooper: I cherished the fond hope that I might have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at this stage of our proceedings; but all I can say is that I am not surprised that yet again I did not succeed.
I believe that the position is quite clear. This clause relates to a composite prospectus only; that is, where two or more companies are sold at the same time. As I said, our intention in this respect is simply in relation to the 12 area successor companies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Baroness accept that the two Scottish successor companies will have composite listing particulars?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, I was coming to that. The Scottish boards and the generating companies will be subject to the requirements of the Financial Services Act. It is only the supply companies that will be subject to a simultaneous sale. I assure the noble Lord that the supply companies' prospectus will also contain particulars on the grid company. Where the information relates to the grid the directors of that company will be responsible for the information. The responsibility will be clearly defined in the prospectus itself, as I have said. We shall be complying with the provisions of Section 152 of the Financial Services Act. There will be verification, which will involve the Government and their advisers. Therefore there is no need to mention that in the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord's anxieties are fully covered.
12 noon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me. In the clause as drafted where

429
does it say that it is only concerned with public electricity supply?
Baroness Hooper: The clause as drafted relates to "two or more successor companies". When the amendment was tabled I believe its relevance concerned the simultaneous flotation of the 12 area board companies. I now realise that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, intended his amendment to go somewhat wider than that. I believe that the provisions with which we are complying entirely fulfil our responsibility in giving the public all the information that it requires and full knowledge of those responsible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My amendment was addressed to the clause as drafted. As drafted it very clearly specifies that it concerns composite listing particulars:
"for securities of two or more successor companies".
I cannot be responsible for the original drafting of the clause. It goes beyond the public electricity suppliers and concerns the Scottish companies. I tried to point out that I believe that the composite listing particulars may, because BNFL is a plc, go to National Power. The only company that I can see which is right outside at the moment is Power Gen. It is not just a question of public electricity suppliers. The noble Baroness may say it is, but that is not what the Bill, as drafted, says. I hope very much that she will look again at the drafting. If she is saying that the Scottish companies are to be treated in one way and the area boards in another, that should be spelled out on the face of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me on that.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the clause is drafted to facilitate any simultaneous sale but that does not mean that all the sales will be simultaneous. A decision has not yet been taken as to whether the two Scottish electricity companies should have a composite prospectus, or separate prospectuses.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may explain the point to the Committee. I beg the noble Baroness's pardon, but it is not a question of whether there will be simultaneous flotation of the two Scottish companies. The point is that there will be two successor companies; namely, the SSEB and the Scottish nuclear company. They will be in the same prospectus. The Scottish nuclear company will be a subsidiary of the SSEB plc. Let us leave aside the north of Scotland and deal with the south of Scotland. There will be composite listing particulars at that point. Somebody has to take overall responsibility. I would like the Secretary of State to take that responsibility for the whole lot.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear what he would like the Secretary of State to do. Returning to the Scottish question, both Scottish electricity companies will be responsible for the particulars as regards the nuclear subsidiary. The sale of the shares of a company which owns shares in other companies is not a sale of the shares in those other companies. At least that is my understanding. In view of the concern expressed I undertake to take this matter back for it to be looked at again. If
430
necessary I shall either write to the noble Lord or have it discussed at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I humbly suggest that not only does she take it back but that she looks at the drafting to see whether the wording means what she said it means. Personally, I do not believe it does. There is still the question that I wish to be resolved as regards the role of the Secretary of State and his advisers. I say for the one hundredth time that I believe the Crown has to take responsibility. Nevertheless we have had a debate on the subject. I look forward to receiving clarification at the Report stage from the Government of what they really mean. When we know that we can start amending it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 232CA:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause
("Flotation costs to be borne by successor companies.
The Secretary of State and the Director shall ensure that all costs of promoting and underwriting floatation, including any advertising prior to floatation, shall be clearly identified and borne by the successor companies as a charge on successor company profits without extra cost to consumers.").
The noble Lord said: I regard this as an extremely serious amendment which requires discussing at some length. Before getting down to the subject I apologise to the Committee for raising a matter that troubles me slightly. In looking at the amendment itself I note the spelling of "floatation". At the side of the amendment it is spelt "Flotation". I then turn to the Bill and find that it is spelt "floatation". In the Notes on Clauses it is spelt "flotation". The further problem I have, speaking as the Opposition's Front Bench spokesman on education, is that I cannot recall what is the correct spelling or whether both are correct. Also, not having any legal knowledge, I do not know whether the Bill is imperilled in any way by having a word in it which is misspelt. I mention that matter before getting down to the business of the amendment. I have only just noticed the spelling and I would have rushed out for a dictionary. However, I was so intrigued by the previous amendment that I thought I should stay for that.
This amendment refers to the costs of promoting and underwriting flotation, however spelt. In particular I wish to identify or emphasise the advertising side of the subject. I shall explain in a moment that I have grave doubts about the extent to which we have seen advertising in connection with the privatisation programme in recent times. Apart from that the question arises, whatever the costs of flotation, including all those referred to in the amendment, whether it is at all reasonable that such costs should be borne by consumers. I argue that it is by no means obvious that such costs should be borne by them. The emphasis in the amendment is that they should be borne through the successor companies' profits. An alternative view, but one that I do not share, would be to argue that they should be borne by the taxpayer. It is not clear that one can

431
argue cogently that the taxpayer gets benefits other than the crude benefits of the sums coming in.
That is the central idea. The point to which I wish most to draw attention is what has been happening about advertising as regards the privatisation of this industry. I also refer to advertising and the privatisation of water and similar industries. Recently we have seen what appears to be an enormous increase in advertising by the current nationalised electricity companies. I worry about the propriety of it. I hope the Committee accept and realise that the industry is still in public hands.
It is entirely beyond reasonable behaviour that public enterprises should be engaged however indirectly, in advertising connected with privatisation. That is a misuse of power. I go further. As some of the senior staff of the current public enterprises may expect to hold senior positions in the forthcoming private enterprises, and on past performance at much higher salaries, one can at least again query the propriety of their engaging in any activity, in particular advertising, which is not of an arm's length kind with respect to privatisation.
The sums involved are not measured in thousands of pounds or tens of thousands of pounds but in millions of pounds. We are talking about enormous sums being paid into the advertising industry. We are not talking about advertising that can be justified—there are advertising programmes which benefit the consumer in terms of providing information and so on—but about advertising of a PR and an image building kind. This is advertising of your friendly, local nuclear power station kind. I say that as someone who is not known for his opposition to nuclear power per se. My opposition here is to the misuse of funds.
Do we regard it as proper that what will become a privatised industry—I assume that will be the case if the Government's majority is maintained—but which at this time is in public ownership should incur expenses that are chargeable to the consumer? The extent of the advertising is all pervasive. One sees it in the serious press, and the Central Electricity Board has been advertising on television. I normally manage somehow to switch off, mentally if not physically, when that kind of advertising occurs. It does not get to me but I assume that there are impressionable people at whom it is aimed.
My final concern is again to do with the declaration of interest by relevant people. A number of people in the public relations game, when they are not intent on destroying the party of noble Lords opposite in election campaigns, are endeavouring to make money not merely at the present time in advertising public enterprises soon to be privatised but, I assume, hope to be the PR people who earn enormous sums when the industry is privatised. That is what they have in mind. It is a matter more of concern to noble Lords opposite than to my noble friends on these Benches. This is complicated by the fact that the privatisation of the two industries is enormously unpopular. The privatisation of water is more unpopular than the privatisation of electricity, but opinion polls have shown that the privatisation
432
of electricity is unpopular. The privatisation of nuclear generation is particularly unpopular.
One asks again whether there is not at least some modicum of impropriety that at this time public sector funds—I repeat that the industry is still in public ownership—should be used with a view to making this less unpopular. It is up to noble Lords opposite to decide how they justify the use of general government funds to push government policy. We have had arguments about that. I certainly have no objection to their using their own private party funds for those purposes. However, all noble Lords ought to be concerned when funds belonging to a nationalised industry are used for these purposes.
I have ranged broadly over these matters. It is an extremely serious topic. It is one concerned with the general standard of public life in this country which I think has deteriorated. The fact that there is not broader objection to this kind of thing puzzles and worries me. I have used the amendment to draw this matter, albeit on a Friday, to the Committee's attention. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's justification. I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Trafford: The noble Lord quite accurately said that he wandered broadly over the subject but he did not address or justify the wording of his amendment. He talked at great length about the propriety or otherwise of advertising in the press or on television. He has a point but there is a difficult line to draw between public service advertising—advertising in the sense that one is preparing for a flotation, however that may be spelt—and what one might call direct PR from the point of view of image building for the post-privatisation image of the successor companies. However, this is not what the amendment refers to.
The amendment says that all the costs of promoting and underwriting a flotation, including advertising prior to that—I assume that that covers all advertising back to when I am not sure because it is not stated—should be charged not just to the successor companies but to the profits of the successor companies without charge to the consumer. It is a cleverly designed amendment which seeks to avoid harming consumers by not adding to their costs or to the costs of the taxpayer. But it does not wash. In one respect it is reasonable to suggest that if a successor company and its shareholders are to benefit greatly they should bear a large part of the costs of the advertising that has led to that benefit. But the taxpayer will also benefit as a result of the advertising campaign because the price at which the industry is sold will be advanced.
I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to confirm some figures. For example, the famous advertising campaign for British Gas which featured Sid led to an enhancement of the price and therefore to a benefit for the taxpayer in the sense that he received a higher price. In that sense it would be unfair if this was passed away from the taxpayer as the amendment suggests, thus depriving him of some of the benefits of the sale.
On the other hand it might be equally unfair if it were to land in the lap of the consumer. There is a

433
clear distinction between who is likely to profit from which type of advertising. The taxpayer or the Government will benefit from the promotion of the industry in the sense that the price at which it is sold will be elevated. To that extent they will benefit. In the sense that the industry develops by attracting interest and providing an image of efficiency and effectiveness, it could be argued that the company benefits. The amendment makes quite clear that the taxpayer is deprived but does not make clear in any specific way that I can reasonably accept that it protects the consumer.
I take the noble Lord's point as regards advertising in general terms; indeed, one has one's suspicions about the extent to which any of these campaigns are of any great value. But, for those who do estimate them, there has at least been the previous example of gas privatisation. I am sure that my noble friend can provide the relevant figures, but I believe that the sum which the Treasury eventually received runs into more than £100 million.
For those reasons I think that the amendment as it stands is flawed. I do not think that it would protect consumers in the long run and it certainly does down the taxpayer.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised an important point at this stage. For many years I was concerned with advertising in a publicly-owned enterprise. I must say that we were always most cautious of spending a lot of money which ultimately belonged to the public in merely image building, however highly we thought of our enterprise. Most of our advertising was directed specifically to selling. However, the kind of advertising which is going on now as regards the electricity and water industries is not selling; indeed, if the water industry was proposing to sell water now it would be doing something most peculiar as the authorities are in the process of stopping us from using it.
Therefore I should like to say that I have grave doubts about what is happening now in these promotional campaigns for privatisation conducted by the currently nationalised industries with the use of funds which have been placed at their disposal for other purposes. That is a very good point, even if it does not emerge precisely in those terms in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is absolutely right in raising what appears to me to be a degree of impropriety in what is going on at present. I have heard many people query those advertisements when they have appeared on the television screen. People have asked me, "Why are they doing this? What has this got to do with it? Why are they spending this money?
Another issue I should like to raise concerns the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. He said that he justified any advertising carried out by the Government, as opposed to the present publicly-owned authorities, on the grounds that it could enhance the value of the shares. I am very dubious as to whether that should be done. I think that in a sale of this sort one should be selling on a fair price, and not on a price which has been enhanced by an enormous amount of advertising so that at the
434
end of the day people are persuaded to pay more than they should be paying. Surely that is not what he is proposing. The price which the public is asked to pay should be a fair price which is related to the assets of the business and their likely profitability under the new service. That information should be set out in the prospectus. The only sort of advertising which I think could be justified is that of a factual nature which would ensure that people are aware of what it is all about. It should also draw their attention to the issues raised in the prospectus. Anything which goes beyond that and persuades people to pay a higher price than they would otherwise for those shares cannot be justified.
Therefore I am most concerned about the purport of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. It seems to me that in such a case, where major public assets are being disposed of, the greatest possible care should be taken in regard to the way in which it is done and on the sort of advertising which accompanies it. I believe that the advertising on previous occasions has been excessive. I do not think that it is justified, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is absolutely right to raise the issue in this way. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not support the amendment and I am sure that that fact does not surprise any Member of the Committee. I find the points which have been raised in the debate of great interest. I thought that my noble friend Lord Trafford made a valid point. It is in the public interest to obtain the best price for the sale of public assets. I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. He said that it is unfair to persuade people that shares are worth buying and thereby perhaps raise the price slightly. We are talking about only slight differences here.
However, there are other reasons why advertising is important in terms of flotation. One is that when it is said that a share prospectus is a document which you can read in detail and study, I think that we are considering only the educated member of the public who is capable of studying the details. However, there are many ordinary people who would like to be informed as to what this is all about, what exactly they will receive for their money and what interest there is for them in acquiring such shares.
I shall not comment on the water publicity because I have also found it somewhat curious. However, the electricity industry will be sold on a rather complex basis where different supply companies will be sold separately. There will then be the transmission and the generating companies. In order for ordinary members of the public to understand exactly what the different segments are and which segment they should choose to buy shares in, or whether they should choose one or more or perhaps none, they must be fully informed. For that reason I believe that there is a need for explanation and advertising on a level other than just in a share prospectus.
Lord Ezra: I must tell the noble Baroness that I fully agree with what she just said. I said that I thought that if advertising took the form of information and explained to people what was in

435
the prospectus, it was totally justified. However, what I am concerned about is the type of advertising which we see now.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. The other point is that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between advertising which is being done for the purposes of this industry and that for the gas industry. From my own knowledge of the electricity industry, I know that we must keep pretty well on form all the time. There have been studies and surveys. For example, all one has to do is to give the gas shower a big boost on television and suddenly everyone will put in a gas-powered shower. Of course, the electricity industry would be most distressed about the use of the word "power" as regards a gas shower, because it feels that it is the source of power. The electricity industry must then counter that and show what it can produce in the same way. There is constant competition all the time between those two sources of power.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene here for just a moment. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of this, but she is in fact implicitly supporting the point which I made; namely, that one of the things at which one looks askance is this mutually destructive advertising by the different energy industries, often built around the minor neuroses they have, such as the use of the word "power". However, I am not certain that that is enormously helpful to her case in her endeavour to support advertising.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I consider that advertising is important, as I have already explained. It is also a way of teaching people how to economise on the use of their power source, whatever it may be. However, the point that I was about to make was that it is extremely difficult, and would be extremely difficult, under the terms of the amendment to differentiate between what is normal commercial advertising and what is advertising connected to the flotation. That makes acceptance of the amendment most difficult.
I should also like to ask the Minister if she would comment in her reply on the situation as regards the privatisations of British Telecom and British Gas. Who met the costs of flotation in those cases? Surely there must be a parallel and precedent already set in that connection. However, I do not support the amendment as it stands.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I must say that the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, we have had a most useful debate on the subject. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by providing the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with some information. I understand that flotation spelt "floatation" follows the Concise Oxford Dictionary but that the word spelt without the "a" at the beginning is commonly, but not yet authoritatively, used. Whichever spelling is used, it should have no effect whatever on the Bill.
436
However, I assume in this regard that in connection with the Water Bill no such dilemma has arisen and the word has consistently been spelt "floatation".
In relation to advertising and promotion expenses which are referred to in the amendment, we believe that the Government have a duty to ensure that the taxpayer receives proper value for the sale of the industry. Promotion of the offer of sale, as well as the underwriting, will play a key role in that regard. Indeed, this has been the case rigorously pursued in all previous privatisations. The benefits from having the sale underwritten and of increasing demand through advertising the offer for sale appear as increased proceeds. That is a benefit to the taxpayer, and that is why the Government meet such costs. The advertising costs and the underwriting costs which the Government incur will be netted off from the proceeds of the sale.
The discussion has concentrated on advertising. It is essential to ensure that potential investors are fully informed of forthcoming offers for sale. That allows a proper share price to be set and therefore helps maximise proceeds for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, advertising that is designed to establish the identity of the individual companies that will result from the break up of the existing monopoly, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, is of course proper. It is also proper that it remains the responsibility of the companies. I happened to see an advertisement recently on television made by certain area boards which dealt clearly with the benefits of energy efficiency measures. I should have thought that noble Lords would welcome that form of advertising.
Whatever the purpose and objective of the advertising, the Government are determined that all expenditure should give value for money. When considering what to spend on advertising, the Government are not just concerned with price, although, as I said, that is important to the taxpayer. They will also take account of the benefits which will flow from selling shares to millions of ordinary investors and to the industry's employees. They will take into account the fact that advertising will increase the total demand for shares and thus help to ensure that the taxpayer receives a fair return on his investment. Wider share ownership is one of the Government's great achievements.
Much has been said about the extent of advertising costs. Advertising costs are small in relation to the proceeds of a sale: only 0·7 per cent. for British Gas, for example, or 0·3 per cent. for Rolls-Royce. In the case of British Gas, as my noble friend Lord Trafford said, the advertising campaign was successful and allowed the Government to set a share price in the order of 5p above that which would otherwise have been sustainable. That resulted in an increase in proceeds of some £200 million.
To the extent that the overall marketing campaign for the offer for sale brings benefits to the industry, the cost will be shared with the industry. Our campaign is likely to be a joint one, reflecting the balance of interest between the taxpayer and industry, as has been the case with previous privatisations. The amendment also covers underwriting. Experience has shown that

437
underwriting can be essential to ensure that all the shares being offered for sale are sold. Underwriting creates investor confidence that the sale will proceed and therefore be good value for money.
The proposed new clause requiring all the costs of promoting and underwriting the privatisation to be met out of the profits of the successor companies, without any additional charge to the customer, is an odd proposition. If the whole of those costs, including those that the Government incur, were to be met by the company out of its profits, that would of course be reflected in a reduction in the level of proceeds. In other words, the costs would still be met by the taxpayer, but indirectly. I cannot see any advantage in that. It is not for the Secretary of State to dictate how a private sector company's profits are used. That is a matter for the directors of the board whose decision will be endorsed by the shareholders.
As I have explained, the taxpayer will benefit from the increased demand for shares created by promotional and advertising campaigns, which, along with the underwriting of the offer, will be an important ingredient in the overall success of the flotation. It would be improper to treat those costs in the manner proposed in the amendment.
The director's involvement in all this is strange. He is the regulator of the industry's activities of electricity generation, transmission and supply. He is not concerned with how the Government sell the industry, and as for how the Secretary of State or the director are to ensure the requirements of the clause are met, that raises a query. It is not a matter for a licence condition because that is a regulatory mechanism and would therefore involve the director, who is not involved, as I have said. It is not a matter for the special share because that would involve the Secretary of State too closely in the company's internal financial affairs.
For those reasons, and the general reasons that I have given, the Government do not accept the amendment and I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Before we leave this matter, I must apologise for being called away from the Chamber on some urgent business. This point may have been covered while I was out of the Chamber: it relates to distinguishing between the taxpayer and the consumer. My noble friend just used the phrase to which she is becoming accustomed—"the balance of interest". Everything must be in the balance of interest. We must get the balance right and keep it right. The balance of interest between the consumer and the taxpayer was mentioned. They are not the same people by any manner of means. The consumers are everybody; taxpayers, except in so far as they pay indirect taxation, are not everybody.
One of the basic worries some of us have had about the Bill—I am still in favour of privatisation in principle but not this way of achieving it—and I still have, is that it will result in pushing up prices. to the consumer, whether they are industrial, who concern me most, or private.
438
When my noble friend says that the taxpayer will do well out of this Bill, never mind about the consumer—that is the implication of what she said—that is a false balance. The balance is wrong. I must apologise for having missed the earlier part of my noble friend's speech but I was called away from the Chamber.
Baroness Hooper: With leave, I do not believe that that was the purport of my remarks. I emphasised that the taxpayer was important. We believe that a good price should be received from the sale. The effect of the amendment, which would push the costs entirely on to the successor companies, would have a greater consequence on the consumer than the way in which we propose the arrangements should proceed.
Lord Peston: This has been a useful discussion not least in clarifying the spelling of the word "flotation". Whatever else may have been my experience this morning, my education has been improved. I am interested to note that the Water Bill has kept to one spelling throughout whereas with electricity we have gone in for various spellings.
It will not surprise the Minister to know that, although I do not go as far as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel did in regard to her previous answer to his amendment, which I think he said was the worst answer he had received, this is not an answer that I find satisfactory. After listening to some of the interventions I have become more and more alarmed. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, mentioned advertising and the share price. That takes us of course into the classic debate on the nature of advertising.
Clearly, if the advertising is designed to make the possible purchasers better informed and therefore appreciate the value of the assets more than otherwise would have been the case, it is not unreasonable. That applies generally to advertising. None of us has any doubts about advertising which enhances the consumer's or, in this case the saver's or investor's, ability to take a rational decision. The point at issue which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised is that advertising goes further than that. I suppose I must accept the point—I think the noble Baroness herself raised it—that in practice it is not easy to distinguish the two types of advertising as to which is doing what. But that does not mean that it is an irrelevant consideration. It is very relevant.
On the general question of the taxpayer, we do not wish to go back over the whole of the Second Reading debate on privatisation, but we must not forget that these industries are already in public ownership. The assets are already owned by the community at large. Therefore in a sense one is selling what one owns, and one asks, "What is the net gain?". In my own view, the only relevant net gain is that privatisation would benefit the consumer. I have to argue, as I have argued before, that the taxpayer is an irrelevance in this sense. If the taxpayers receive more than they should as a result of misleading advertising, then I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I could not support that as a principle of public policy. I emphasise those points.

439
To return to the matters which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised, I fully accept that there is legitimate advertising. There is no argument about it. I accept that if and when the industry is privatised, some genuine questions over the new companies establishing their public image will arise. I also know in practice—again because I am not unaware of the economics—that it is hard to distinguish who bears the costs anyway. My amendment raises very complex issues. I still insist that the subject raised here is of overwhelming importance. I believe that we have seen behaviour close to the improper.
Let me say to the noble Baroness that one may refer to certain costs as being 0·75 per cent. However, 0·75 per cent. of a very large number—which is what we are talking about here, millions and millions of pounds—is also a very large number. To say that it is only a small fraction that is being spent on advertising cuts no ice whatsoever with me. Therefore, having listened to the answer, and because of the enormous importance which I attach to the matter, I must press the amendment.
12.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 232CA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 69.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mulley, L.

Airedale, L.

Nicol, B.

Ardwick, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Attlee, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Fitt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Willis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Mountevans, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Arran, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Blyth, L.

Effingham, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

440

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Nelson, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Oxfuird, V.

Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hesketh, L.

Romney, E.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holderness, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Sempill, Ly,

Ironside, L.

Shannon, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marley, L.

Trafford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.50 p.m.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Dissolution etc. of existing bodies]:
[Amendment No. 232D not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232E:
Page 58, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) All records and documents belonging to the existing bodies shall become the property of the Secretary of State unless transferred to successor companies under a transfer scheme.").
The noble Lord said: On previous occasions when official bodies have been wound up, there has been a problem regarding the future of records and documents belonging to those bodies. If I may make a personal reminiscence, I recall that when the Price Commission was wound up there was a special clause in the competition Act which achieved that winding up, which ensured that the experience of the Prices and Incomes Board, which was wound up in 1970, was not repeated. The documents of the Prices and Incomes Board were put in the charge of that board under the Act which set the board up. When the Act was passed to wind up that board, the documents were then left in limbo. It so happens that they are still in limbo in some group of files somewhere in the Government archives. Those files are unavailable until the 30 year rule applies.
The object of this amendment is simply to make sure that there is no question about where the records of the Electricity Council particularly reside and who keeps them. I assume that unless they are transferred under a transfer scheme to successor companies, they will remain in the hands of the Secretary of State and therefore be government documents with suitable confidentiality attached to them. This is really quite a simple point. However, I hope the Minister will be able to assure me that appropriate arrangements have been made or, if not, that appropriate arrangements will be made. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that such records and documents of the

441
electricity industry as are not eventually transferred to the successor companies should be preserved by the Secretary of State. But in fact this is not something which needs to be embodied in the Bill. The main function of the residual boards after the transfer date will be to assist in perfecting any transfers of foreign property to the appropriate successor company. As each transfer of this description is completed, so the residual board can hand over any relevant documents and records to the company. The residual council has an additional function of winding up the tax affairs of the pre-reorganisation industry. Here also, we expect most of the documents and records to be passed on to the successor companies. There will therefore be only a handful of records remaining when the residual bodies are dissolved—probably only those relating to the statements of accounts to be prepared under subsection (5) of the clause.
When we get to that stage, the existing bodies will be the very merest of shells, and we do not envisage any problem in making administrative arrangements for the future custody of any remaining documents and records. In view of what I have said, and as I know that the Committee is always keen to keep to the bare minimum the legislation going onto the statute book, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his response. However, is he satisfied that the Electricity Council, in passing on—I hope I may use that expression—records and documents to successor companies, or indeed boards or the Secretary of State, will not reveal any commercially confidential information that the disappearing bodies may have had? That has been a problem in the past. Commercially confidential information which may be the property of the Electricity Council, which is to disappear, could be passed on to those under the privatised scheme who could make use of that information.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He raises a very good point on commercially sensitive information. The residual boards and council will not be dissolved until there is nothing further for them to do. They will probably exist for some time in entirely inactive form before they are actually dissolved. The Government will make every effort to ensure that the residual bodies divest themselves of everything before the actual dissolution date. There will be no need on dissolution to deal with any property, rights and liabilities, nor with any employees. As that is the procedure, it will be clear that commercially sensitive information will not get into the wrong hands.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But how are we to be sure that there is no violation of confidential information of a commercial nature in the transfer? It is normally the case that commercial confidentiality is protected in such transfers. However, I see nothing in the Bill at the moment to ensure that that is the case.
The Earl of Dundee: The noble Lord is correct. He sees nothing in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill,
442
but I can give the noble Lord the assurance that there will be adequate protection for commercially sensitive information.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am, as always, grateful to the noble Earl for his courtesy and his assurances. However, I am sure he will recognise that these are matters of great importance for companies, and indeed for individuals. Whatever the noble Earl says from the Government Dispatch Box I am afraid has no authority in a court of law. Unless a provision to cover this situation is written into the Bill in some form or another, a court in the course of time—this may not happen—may discover that there has been a revelation or use of some information that has been classified as commercially confidential by one of the bodies which are to disappear. If that information is used in the course of time, a court would have regard to the Bill rather than to the assurance that the noble Earl has given me. The Government would do well to have a look at this matter, and see whether or not a provision should be written on to the face of the Bill.
The Earl of Dundee: I say again to the noble Lord that any commercially confidential information will be transferred with the obligation of confidence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Earl saying that the obligation of confidence will be transferred to the successor companies, which by then will be privatised?
1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: An important point has been raised here. A point which has not been raised is that there may even be a question of confidentiality between one of the successor companies and another becuse of the great complexity of successor companies. In order to consider the matter further we need a great deal more information than is presently available.
There is also the further aspect that unless papers of this nature are kept confidential, other private generators entering the business might have access to extremely useful information which would give them an unfair competitive edge. I take the point, but I do not see that we can take it much further at this stage. However, it would be most interesting to look into the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She has extended the point that I made, quite rightly. To refer to the experience of the noble Baroness, it could be that the Electricity Council has information about area boards' present customers which is extremely sensitive. It may be that the area board plc—if I may use that expression—will respect the commercial confidentiality of such information. It may be that it will not. I should like to pursue the matter a little further to see whether the noble Earl is prepared to give me and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, an assurance that the Government will think again about the matter.
The Earl of Dundee: I say again to the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that they have an extremely good point in relation to confidential information. It is my understanding that information communicated in confidence will remain confidential notwithstanding the transfers contemplated by the Bill. That is a matter of common law. The successor companies will include the new Central Services Organisation which will hold information which it would be inappropriate to transfer to individual companies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful for the revelation that there will be a Central Services Organisation. It is the first time that I have heard of such an organisation, which is to hold documents which are commercially confidential. Will the noble Earl elaborate on the functions of the Central Services Organisation? How long will it last? Who will be in charge? Who will staff it? What are its rules? Will it be a public body or a semi-public body? Can we have more information on the matter?
The Earl of Dundee: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. The noble Lord has asked me to write a thesis on the Central Services Organisation. I shall certainly inform him by letter of its proposed functions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I always enjoy receiving letters from him. However, we have raised an important point of principle. I hope that he will send a copy of his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and perhaps to other Members of the Committee who will be interested in the point. In his letter would he like to set out the functions of this Central Services Organisation, who will be appointed, whether they are to be paid and whether there will be a new schedule to the Bill saying that this, that and thus will happen?
The Earl of Dundee: At this stage I should simply like to tell the noble Lord that the Central Services Orgnisation is a common services company and will carry on many of the functions of the Electricity Council.
Lord Williams of Elvel: So we now know that it will be a company. Will it be a private company? Will it be a public company? Who will be the shareholders or the shareholder? What will its articles of association be? Who will set it up? Who will be the board of directors? Please may we have more information?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, of course. As I said earlier, I shall inform the noble Lord of those details. At this stage I should like to tell him and the Commmittee that the CSO wil deal with industrial relations, pensions, training and R&D.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful again to the noble Earl. Is there any reference in the Bill as drafted to the CSO, as he now calls it?
The Earl of Dundee: No, there is not. The reason is that the CSO will be a private company owned by all the industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The CSO will take over a number of responsibilities from statutory bodies. Therefore it is quite proper that there should be in the Bill a transfer arrangement, as there is for rather larger enterprises, to this important organisation. I hope very much that the Government will bear in mind what I and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, have said and consider whether this organisation should be part of the statute in some form or another. In my view it would be appropriate for there to be a schedule which would outline the functions which the noble Earl has put before us at a rather curious stage—five-past one on a Friday afternoon on the sixth day of Committee.
Nevertheless, I accept that the noble Earl needs a little time to study these matters and perhaps to receive a message or two. Perhaps he has another comment that he wishes to make on this matter.
The Earl of Dundee: I can assure the noble Lord that, as I always do, I shall take his comments very seriously. In coming back to him we shall bear this in mind.
He made a point about the lack of publicity about the CSO and said that he had not read about it in the Bill. The CSO will be treated in the Electricity Council transfer scheme, and that has been well publicised.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It may have been well publicised but it has escaped my attention and the attention of my noble friends. Nevertheless I do not want to prolong the discussion. However, I make the very serious point that, if there is to be a public organisation, the CSO, which will receive certain very important information which is commercially confidential and confidential in other respects and which will have the responsibilities that the noble Earl described, it seems to me that there should be a schedule to the Bill to describe exactly what the organisation is to do. I leave that thought with the noble Earl. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Compensation to members and employees of existing bodies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232F:
Page 58, Line 29, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We have no particular problem with subsection (1) of Clause 81 in so far as it refers to "other members", namely employees, of existing bodies who may for one reason or another lose their jobs. We have a problem in respect of chairmen and other members of existing bodies, such as members of the council, who for some reason or another may well be paid what are known as golden handshakes.
I wonder whether the noble Earl, if he is to reply, or the noble Baroness, if she is to reply or the noble Lord, if he is to reply, could give us some idea of what kind of golden handshakes chairmen and other

445
senior members of existing bodies will be paid in compensation for loss of office. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I must declare a direct personal interest here as one of those very people. Therefore, I intend to withdraw from the Chamber during this part of the discussions. I shall read about it in Hansard.
The Earl of Dundee: I hope that it will not take me too long to say what I have to say so that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes will be able to return.
Clause 81 enables the Secretary of State to pay compensation to persons serving as chairmen, members of employees of the Electricity Council and boards before the transfer date and who suffer loss of office or employment as a result of the reorganisation of the industry. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would mean that the Secretary of State could pay compensation only to the employees of the existing bodies and not to the chairman and other appointed members. I shall explain why we believe that this would be unfair.
The clause is to a large extent a safety net. We do not expect the power to pay compensation to be much used since the vast majority of people working in the inudustry, both employees and appointed members, will continue to do so after the transfer date.
So far as concerns the full-time existing board and council members, most of them have already been designated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy as directors of one or other of the successor companies, such designations being subject to the passage of this legislation. They will therefore continue to serve in the industry after vesting and will suffer no loss of remuneration or pension rights. Nevertheless, the Electricity Council is being dissolved and the CEGB restructured into three companies, and there may therefore be a very few full-time appointed members who will suffer loss of office. Some of them may continue in the industry as employees, but there may be one or two who do not.
I am sure the Committee will agree that it would be very unfair for the legislation to terminate a board member's appointment prematurely without enabling the Secretary of State to compensate that member for loss of office. That would indeed be a poor reward after all their work for the industry over the years and especially during the lead up to privatisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the case of individual members. The amount of compensation will depend on the circumstances of the individual. I cannot give the Committee a specific formula that will be used. However, before seeking Treasury approval, my right honourable friend will take into account any loss of remuneration resulting from the loss of office.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this amendment is not necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again I am grateful to the noble Earl but I do not find his reply entirely satisfactory. There are many public bodies on which people are called to serve and do serve not because they are remunerated but because they wish to give public service. When one company is taken over by another company it is perfectly reasonable for the chairman to be sacked and given some kind of a golden handshake, although the extent of golden handshakes now beggars the imagination. However, it seems odd that the taxpayer who, indirectly through the Government and the Consolidated Fund, will receive enormous sums from privatisation, should remunerate people for loss of office just because they will not be transferred to successor companies.
I was brought up in the belief, which I think used to obtain, that if one gave one's service to a public company one did so from a sense of public duty. The assumption under subsection (1) that in some way people make their living from being on such boards must be wrong.
Furthermore, the noble Earl said that he cannot give me any indication as to the kind of formula that will be applied. Perhaps I may ask him a very direct question. The chairman of the Electricity Council will no longer hold office after privatisation because, as we know, that council will go into dissolution. What will he be paid as compensation for loss of office?
The Earl of Dundee: Taking first the noble Lord's last point about the chairman of the Electricity Council, I am sure he will understand that I cannot comment on the position of individuals. The noble Lord referred to the spirit in which the chairman and members gave their services to the boards. We are talking here of a power of the Secretary of State to compensate if he thinks it right. He is not obliged to compensate.
I think the noble Lord and the Committee will agree that it would be quite wrong if the Secretary of State were denied the power to compensate people whose services might have been given for a great many years and who have lost office, pension rights and so on. Full-time board members make their living from the industry and these boards contain many full-time executives.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Earl can help me on further points? The word he used was "full-time". Which members of which boards make their full-time living from membership of those boards rather than seeing it as a part-time occupation like that of a non-executive director of a public company?
Secondly, can he explain how it happens that the taxpayer is required to pay compensation for loss of office to somebody who has been employed by him for a long time but who on a government initiative loses his job?
Thirdly, can he give me some further enlightenment on whether or not it is true—and I hope to draw on the noble Earl's wealth of

447
experience—that, if a Secretary of State is given power to pay out money, the chances are that he will end up by paying it out?
So this is not just a pure enabling clause. The people involved will be looking to this power and the Secretary of State to perform under it.
The Earl of Dundee: With regard to the noble Lord's first point, these boards contain a core of full-time board members. I shall indeed write—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Earl will explain to me, because I am genuinely ignorant on the matter, whether those full-time members are executive or non-executive members.
The Earl of Dundee: My understanding is that there is a mixture of both. Some full-time members are executives and some are non-executive members.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. If there are some full-time non-executive members of the board, what on earth are they doing?
The Earl of Dundee: I rather hope that the noble Lord will agree with me when I tell him that what they are doing is a very good job.
The noble Lord's second point was that when it is a question of compensation to a government employee or appointee, the rules should be different. I cannot agree with him. A job is a job. One cannot distinguish between very hard work done on the instructions or in the employment of the Government and very hard work done in another capacity. I believe that the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may come back very briefly on that point. I do indeed distinguish between jobs that are done at the invitation of government which, generally speaking, are public service jobs and jobs for which people are elected by a group of shareholders to be directors of a public company. I do distinguish between them. The noble Earl may not make that distinction but I do.
The Earl of Dundee: If the noble Lord wishes to make that distinction then he is free to do so. However, I hope that on sober reflection—and by "sober" I do not mean to imply that the noble Lord is inebriated; this is early in the day and none of us has had lunch—and on considering the matter in context he will agree that it would be very unfair to make an exception of people just because they happen to be government appointees.
Perhaps I could end by picking up a point of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale who earlier on referred to the concept of balance. When he referred to that concept I thought for a moment that he might be a little unhappy about it because he remarked upon how often it had been used during the passage of this Bill. I return to the point with which I intended to begin in the context of this clause, that this is a power that we are giving to the Secretary of State. He is not obliged to compensate, but he will have that power.
448
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, seemed to cast doubt on the fair-mindedness not necessarily of any particular Secretary of State but on Secretaries of State as a breed of men. Our view is that the Secretary of State will exercise proper and due discretion in this matter and that he will reward fairly those people who are deserving of reward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not think that we can get much further in this debate. I do not like the idea that the Secretary of State should have total discretion to remunerate non-executive members of boards who apparently spend all their time on non-executive duties for reasons which I do not understand. They may be extremely worthy ladies or gentlemen. I find that position very odd. My experience is that once the Secretary of State is given powers to do something, in particular to pay out taxpayers' money, he will normally pay out the taxpayers' money because that is the easy way out.
I find the explanation of the noble Earl regarding the Secretary of State—whether or not he is fair minded; I have no comment on the generality of Secretaries of State, and I hope that he will not put such a comment into my mouth—to be a very curious way of discussing legislation at Committee stage. Nevertheless, we have spent enough time on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Discharge etc. of certain advances and loans made to existing bodies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232G:
Page 59, line 10, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("relevant successor company").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 232G stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This is a relatively simple and probably a probing amendment. I am not quite sure why the Treasury should be the recipient of councils' or boards' liabilities in respect of any foreign currency loans made to the council or board. I am not quite sure why the Treasury should have power to direct that. It would seem to me that in commercial reality there is no difference between a foreign currency loan and a sterling loan. As we know, other than apparently these, which will be discharged or transferred to the Treasury, all liabilities will be transferred to successor companies. We discussed that the other day. I am quite unclear as to why foreign currency loans stand in a separate category. There may be many good reasons. I should be grateful if the Government Front Bench will help me on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am unable to accept this amendment. Therefore I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord regards it as a probing amendment.
Clause 82(2), enables the Treasury to direct the Electricity Council or a Scottish Board to prepay or transfer to the Treasury outstanding foreign loans before the transfer date. Since the noble Lord has

449
put the amendment in the way that he did, it may be helpful to Members of the Committee if I explain the background to this subsection. It is the Government's objective that the successor companies should start their existence with new capital structures from the transfer date. To achieve a clean sheet on the new financial basis, it is necessary for the industry to prepay its existing long-term debt from the National Loans Fund and to prepay or transfer to the Treasury foreign currency loans. The option of transferring foreign loans to the Treasury would result in the suitable phasing of repayments to lenders by the Treasury. Indeed, the terms of some of these loans make no provision for the early repayment. Where loans are transferred, the industry would pay the Treasury the sterling equivalent of the value of the outstanding loans and the Treasury would pay the foreign lender later.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove the possibility of transferring these loans to the Treasury, but instead would allow for them to be transferred to the successor companies. This would not be consistent with the Government's policy. These loans were obtained in some cases at least, with the benefit of foreign exchange cover and an interest rate benefit provided by the Treasury, and to carry such loans into the private sector would give the companies an unfair advantage—which I am sure the noble Lord would not wish—would impose a cost on the taxpayer, and would be inconsistent with our proposal to establish the new companies on a commercial basis.
I can appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, but I hope that in the light of my explanation he will feel that his amendment has been justified, and able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am as always grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanations. However, I do not think this one meets the point. We have established in an earlier part of the Bill—I refer the Committee to Clause 63—that, subject to the provisions of Clause 66,
"all property, rights and liabilities to which immediately before that date the Electricity Council was entitled or subject",
Will be transferred to successor companies. We now have foreign currency loans treated outside the ambit of that clause, as I understand it. I cannot see the difference between foreign currency loans and sterling loans for the purpose of commercial reality.
The noble Baroness said that the Treasury had offered foreign exchange cover on foreign currency loans to the Electricity Council. That is certainly true. I know it from experience. However, the Treasury has charged a premium for that. Indeed, the Treasury premium can be varied from one to whatever figure the noble Baroness likes to mention. All that the Treasury is doing is to give a foreign exchange hedge against fluctuations in the sterling value of the foreign currency loan. There is no taxpayer subsidy of necessity in this. It is simply an insurance policy which the successor company could or could not, if it wished, take out with the Treasury or anybody else.
It is a common feature of the modern financial market that if one borrows in Australian dollars,
450
swaps them into Norwegian Kroner, and swaps those back into sterling, one gets a cheaper rate of sterling. It is a perfectly sensible commercial formula. I see no reason why the Treasury should not engage in this game of providing insurance cover. I do not see that there is any question necessarily of a subsidy unless the Treasury wishes to give one. It will do so under Schedule 12 to which we shall come later. There is no question of a subsidy on the foreign currency loans.
The noble Baroness stated that the Government wished the successor companies to start off with—I believe that she said—a clean sheet. I shall be most grateful if she can help us as to what a clean sheet may mean. What will be the capital structure of successor companies? I understand that the Treasury may wish electricity stock to be redeemed or at least transferred and to become Government gilt-edged stock. That certainly would alleviate the Electricity Council, and possibly successor companies if liabilities are going to be transferred to successor companies on an appropriate basis from that financial burden. However, we have not yet heard from the Government exactly what they mean by a proper financial structure for successor companies. Since the noble Baroness has raised this point, I shall be grateful if she can give us a little more detail.
Baroness Hooper: In this case, a clean sheet refers to the sorting out of the foreign loan position. I expand upon what I said. Public sector industries have been able to borrow from foreign currency lenders such as the European Investment Bank on behalf of the official reserves. This borrowing has enjoyed an interest rate benefit and the Treasury has provided cover against exchange risks. The costs to the taxpayer would be incurred if the loans were transferred to the successor companies, by effectively subsidising the rates of interest on the loans. Treasury-assisted interest rates are appropriate to public sector bodies, but we believe not to private sector bodies.
Discussions on the capital structure of the successor companies will take place with the area boards during the summer and prior to vesting date, which perhaps goes to explain why I am not prepared to go into detail on the questions that the noble Lord has raised.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have moved a little further. We now know that while the Bill is before noble Lords we shall not have any idea of what the capital structure of the successor companies will be. We also know as a consequence that we have no idea of how the successor companies' balance sheets will look, what debt they will be loaded with or not loaded with as the case may be. This is different from the British Gas situation. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I were veterans of the passage of the Gas Bill through this Chamber and we spent quite a lot of time discussing the nature and extent of the debentures that the Government would impose on British Gas so that they could sell those debentures off to the market and receive the appropriate cash into the Consolidated Fund. In this case we have no

451
idea what the Government propose for the capital structure. As the noble Baroness said, we shall not have any idea before the Bill leaves this Chamber.
I have to say this because it seems to me that I am battering against a brick wall. So far as I know, the only guarantees that the treasury has offered to Electricity Council foreign currency loans are FX cover. If there is a Treasury guarantee I fully understand that that is a gilt-edged guarantee and that it should be called when the Treasury moves out of the picture. On the other hand, FX cover is quite a different matter because everybody takes out an FX cover, if he has any sense, on any foreign currency loan, be it a private or public company, local authority or anything else. I do not see that FX cover is relevant to the point that the noble Baroness makes. However, I could be persuaded if the noble Baroness could point me to loans contracted by the Electricity Council or the CEGB which have a Treasury guarantee. In those circumstances, I should be perfectly happy that those should be redeemed or transferred to the Treasury prior to vesting.
Baroness Hooper: I shall investigate the position in an endeavour to point the noble Lord in the right direction, but I feel that it is important to say that we are at least 10 months or more away from the first sale. Indeed, the legislation has not yet been completed and so the details I have given to the Committee, on which I have tried to be helpful, or as helpful as I can, are as specific and clear as can reasonably be expected so far in advance of the first sale which, as I said, is 10 months way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand. I do not wish to chide the noble Baroness for being unspecific and unclear. She has been perfectly specific and perfectly clear. What she has said in very simple words is that she will not let the Committee, or indeed your Lordships' House, have any idea of what the capital structure of the successor companies will be before the Bill leaves this place That is perfectly specific and perfectly clear. She has made the point and no doubt we shall have to return to that at later stages. If she can be more specific and more helpful at a later stage, we shall be most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232H to 232K not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Expenditure and receipts of Electricity Council]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 232L:
Page 60, line 31, leave out ("Council") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, like one or two others we have had and one or two others to which we have yet to come, is being set down with a view to clarification. Clause 83 is a way of dealing with unresolved tax issues during the transition phase—the transition phase essentially still occurring after the transfer date. I have two or three
452
questions on which I should like some clarification. First, I draw the Committee's attention to the end of the third line where occur the words;
"with the consent of the Secretary of State".
Am I right in assuming that those words pertain to everything in the clause? In other words, does everything require the consent of the Secretary of State?
The second question for clarification—there are only two, I realise—refers to the precise wording of the amendment, where the Committee will be aware that whereas the last line of the clause uses the words "Council", meaning the Electricity Council, we suggest that it should read "Secretary of State". One would like an explanation of why the word "Council" is there. Why should the council, as it were, think fit on this matter? One possible explanation is that because of the cover of the phrase "with the consent of the Secretary of State", in practice it will make no difference because it will still also mean "if the Secretary of State thinks fit". If that is so, the amendment is an irrelevance.
The second possible explanation is that it has to be there because essentially the Electricity Act 1957 still pertains at that point and the Electricity Act is about the Electricity Council. That is another possible explanation.
Alternatively and lastly, it may be the council because there is a truly substantive reason for it. Those are the clarifications that I am seeking. I should be grateful for any help that the noble Earl can give me.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee will be aware that at present the electricity industry in England and Wales is treated as a single entity for the purpose of corporation tax, with the Electricity Council being the body assessed for the activities of the thirteen boards in addition to its own. The Government believe that—after the transfer date but for the purpose of dealing with matters arising before that date—the existing tried and tested machinery for dealing with the industry's tax affairs should be preserved to deal with any outstanding liabilities. Part of that machinery is the ability of the council to call upon the boards for contributions towards corporation tax liabilities arising from the industry's activities. That appears in Section 21 of the Elecricity Act 1957, which will be repealed on the transfer date.
Clause 83 continues this particular effect of Section 21 and it follows that it is proper for the council, rather than the Secretary of State, to have the responsibility for allocating back to the successor companies as may be appropriate any tax refunds which are received from the Inland Revenue or indeed any contributions which were requested by the council but which were not required for meeting corporation tax and related liabilities.
Noble Lords will note that this clause does not provide in subsection (1) the additional safeguard that contributions will only be called from the successor companies by the council with the Secretary of State's consent. This mirrors a feature of Section 21 of the 1957 Act. It is not expected that

453
any amounts contributed will be significant. In any event, no more will be requested than is necessary to ensure that each company satisfies its fair share of pre-vesting tax liabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, inquired whether any aspect of the clause would enable the council to act independently of the Secretary of State. I hope that my remarks answer his point and assure him that in this context the Secretary of State's consent is not required. In the light of that explanation I hope that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to be assured that the provision would ensure or at least permit that the proportion given back to the various bodies related to the amount that they had paid. There is now a formula in accordance with which the different area boards make their contributions. They then have a discussion as to whether those who have paid more will definitely be paid back more. I do not wish to detain the Committee today but I should like to know whether an assurance can be given on that matter.
The Earl of Dundee: I can give my noble friend the assurance that that will always be the case. Where the contribution requested by the Electricity Council is very much in excess of what may be required the correct amount will always be refunded to the particular authority.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly the comment that the sums of money involved are expected to be fairly small. With that additional clarification I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Grants towards expenditure during transitional period]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 232M:
Page 61, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Lord said: The amendment is tabled as a request for clarification. The clause refers to the incurring of expenditure during the transitional period. I have read the Notes on Clauses and looked at Clause 84. However, I cannot make head or tail of the meaning of the last two lines. Therefore, I suggest that they should be left out.
Can the Minister say whether they have any meaning or do they merely amount to the statement that a transfer scheme is a transfer scheme? In other words, what purpose is served by the words:
"and a tansfer scheme may provide for different designations for different provisions or for different purposes"?
Why does that have to be stated? Is not a transfer scheme a transfer scheme? If so, then that is exactly what it will do. I should like an explanation for the inclusion of these almost mellifluous words:
"different designations for different provisions or different purposes"
Was it the case that someone dreamed up the words and thought, "How nice, I shall put them in"? Or is any meaning to be attached to them other than that
454
which anyone would infer from the words "transfer scheme"? I beg to move.
1.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: It may help the Committee if I first explain the purpose of Clause 84. This is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make, with the approval of the Treasury, grants to any existing body (that is, any electricity board or the Electricity Council) towards expenditure incurred during the transitional period between the transfer date and its dissolution.
The Bill sets out a number of areas where expenses incurred after the transfer date by the Electricity Council, the Generating Board or an area or Scottish board are to be met by the appropriate successor company. Paragraph 29(6) of Schedule 15, for instance, requires the appropriate successor company to meet expenses incurred by the council or electricity board in securing that the vesting of any foreign property, right or liability under Part II is effective under the relevant foreign law. And Paragraphs 30(4) and 31(3) of the same schedule provide that the expenses incurred by the council or an electricity board in preparing and having audited statements of accounts will be met by the appropriate successor company. These cases and the contributions under Clause 83 apart, Clause 84 enables the Secretary of State, with Treasury consent, to pay grants to any existing body towards expenditure incurred during the transitional period.
Lest any Members have doubts on the point, I should add that any grants made under this clause would be the minimum necessary to enable the existing bodies to fulfil their few remaining functions effectively before they are finally dissolved.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It would have the effect that it would not be possible for transfer schemes to provide for different successor companies to be designated for different provisions or for different purposes.
But the present amendment would in fact go much wider than Clause 84, since Clause 84(4) provides a definition of appropriate successor company which applies to the whole of Part II. Moreover, Schedule 15 Part II provides that expressions which are used in Schedule 15 Part II have the same meanings as in Part II of the Bill.
The concept of the appropriate successor company is crucial to the working of the transfer scheme. Since the property of the CEGB is being divided among three successors we need a mechanism for linking the CEGB with its successors, and what may be appropriate in one case is not necessarily appropriate in another. Take for example site licences granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. In relation to these licences a designation needs to be made for the purposes of Schedule 15, paragraph 25; National Power would be designated as the appropriate successor company as it will be the only successor to the CEGB which will receive nuclear power stations. On the other hand, paragraph 29(6) of Schedule 15 provides that expenses incurred by the residual electricity boards and the Electricity Council in transferring foreign property shall be met by the appropriate successor

455
company. Here the scheme would probably designate each recipient of an item of foreign property as the appropriate successor company.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister but I find his answer to be quite amazing. I am amazed that he was even willing to read it out. If he reads the clause carefully he will see that, as set out up to that point, it contains nothing to prevent grants being made as appropriate. I agree that we need transitional arrangements, that they need to be as small as possible and that they need to fit the circumstances. However, I find it extraordinary that anyone can read the clause without the last two sentences and take it to mean that everyone must receive the same transitional amount. Without the last two sentences the clause means exactly the same and therefore they are irrelevant.
However, if the noble Lord or his advisers are in some way made happier by wasting two lines I shall not press the matter. One does one's duty of trying to improve the drafting of the Bill. I still insist that the two lines add nothing to the clause but, having made the point and done my duty as a scrutineer of the legislation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Payments for the use of tax losses]:
On Question, Whether Clause 85 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peston: Again on this clause one intervenes for the sake of clarification so that we understand what it says and so that no problems arise with it.
It is entirely right that the industry, as it goes forward, will have to deal with the problem of payment for the use of tax losses. The clause as drafted seems very broad in terms of assumptions, but it may well be that for legal reasons it has to be written in that form. I should certainly like an explanation of that.
I have two main questions in regard to this clause. In so far as there is in the normal course of industry and commerce a payment for tax losses which is perfectly normal when firms take over other firms and so on, can we be assured that the way in which tax losses will be paid for will follow commercial standard practice as regards form and the sums involved?
Secondly, the sums being paid will be paid by the area boards to the generating board, as I read the clause. However, I am not clear what the generating board then does with that money. Does it then belong to the generating board and is it transferred in some way to the subsequent generating boards? The difficulty is that we are in that peculiar limbo phase when discussing such matters as the generating board and the area board rather than the new
456
generating and supply companies. Therefore, it is difficult to understand exactly what is being talked about.
I conclude by emphasising that there is nothing between us on the need to have a clause for payment for the use of tax losses. That is not the point at issue. There is nothing controversial about this. This is merely a matter of clearing up some of the technicalities. They are not irrelevant to the flotation in due course of the industry and the commercial side of who bears what costs. Therefore clarification is needed not merely for my noble friends and for myself but also for the industry relative to the private sector in due course.
Baroness Hooper: We have already discussed how the industry in England and Wales is taxed for corporation tax purposes as a single entity. Of course that has meant that, although in the past the CEGB has incurred tax losses, they have been set against profits made by the area boards. I recognise that the noble Lord appreciates that. Therefore, the consequence has been that the area boards have paid less tax to date than they would have done had they been taxed separately. For the same reasons the CEGB has not to date enjoyed the full benefit of those tax losses itself.
The successor companies will in the future be taxed separately. We believe that it is the right policy that the two sides of the industry—the supply companies on the one hand, the successor companies to the CEGB on the other—should enter the private sector in broadly the same position as if their predecessors had been taxed separately in their own right. That is the object of this clause.
That will be achieved by the order mentioned in the clause which will require the area boards to pay to the CEGB amounts specified in or determined in accordance with the order. Of course the order will need to be made before the transfer date and payments will be made once it is clear how much should be paid. Again we expect that that should be reasonably clear by the transfer date.
The clause ensures that none of the successor companies is placed at a disadvantage because of the way in which the electricity industry in England and Wales has been taxed as a separate entity. It is intended to ensure that each of the area boards is in broadly the same position on the transfer date as they would have been had they been taxed in their own right.
In answer to the specific question raised by the noble Lord, as far as I am aware standard commercial treatment in relation to tax losses will of course operate after the transfer date.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. I was interested in the use of the words "of course". I should like to believe that. It seems to me to be up to her and to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make sure that the "of course" is "of course". What she said was helpful.
We have had little experience of translating a single tax entity of this sort from the public sector into the much more complicated arrangements

457
which will occur in the private sector. Those of us in opposition are in no position to judge whether in practice the matter will work out quite as simply as the noble Baroness implies. I believe that when we are discussing a shareholder's interest there could be room for litigation and general argument about whether each individual company is getting a fair deal.
The purpose of the clause, which is clearly right, is to see that everybody gets a fair deal and everybody has their right share of tax losses and taxation, and about that we do not disagree. It is hard for me to press the point further other than to say that, if trouble emerges, the Government in power may find themselves having to deal with the matter. However, to reiterate an earlier remark, we on this side have done our duty in pointing out the complexities of these matters and have given the relevant words of warning.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Taxation provisions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 233ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 233.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 233ZA:
Page 112, line 23, leave out ("or parts of trades of").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 233ZB. The Taxes Act is quite clear, and indeed the practice of the Inland Revenue is quite clear, on the transfer of tax loss carried forward to other companies. They are quite clear on the point that there must be a trade which is similar or in some constructions identical to that carried on by the previous company in order for the tax loss to be enjoyed by the successor.
The object of Amendment No. 233ZA is to determine what is meant in Schedule 11 by the words "parts of trades". It has always seemed to me—and I have had some experience, together with tax advisers, of calculating what tax loss carried forward should be available—that there is either a trade or not a trade. It is very difficult to establish what is part of a trade. This is the first time that I have come across that expression in tax legislation and I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness could tell me what those words mean.
As regards Amendment No. 233ZB, the addition of the National Grid company seems to me almost a drafting point because there will be parts of the grid operation which may be transferred to National Power and parts of the grid operation which may be transferred in the step down to area boards. I am unclear on whether that includes the activities of those parts that constitute a trade that shall be for the purposes of tax loss carried forward relevant to that area board.
These are probing amendments, as indeed are most of the amendments to Schedule 11. I beg to move.
2 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise that the noble Lord's intention is to obtain information and I shall endeavour to give as much apposite Information as possible. Perhaps I should start by saying that the aim behind Schedule 11 is to preserve continuity. Therefore, the opening paragraphs to paragraph 1 provide, among other things, for that continuity in regard to taxation of the trading profits of the industry. They do so by specifying that each successor company should be deemed at all times to have been carrying on as a separate trade the trade or part of a trade which it inherits from its predecessor. In this respect the noble Lord's amendment would be perfectly acceptable as regards the successor companies of the area boards because they will inherit a specific entity trade, whereas the CEGB is being transferred in three parts, and it is in that respect that the expression "parts of trades" is required.
Paragraph 1(2) provides that, except in the case of an area board, unallowed tax losses and expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made are to be apportioned among the successor companies in the manner specified in the transferor's transfer scheme. In short, this paragraph is fundamental to ensuring fairness and continuity to the successor companies.
The first amendment is designed to prevent continuity—the continuity which we seek to encourage in the taxation of the trading profits of an existing body whose trade is to be split, as will be the case on the generating side, into two or more successor companies. The amendment would therefore place a fundamental and unacceptable barrier in the way of the Electricity Council, the CEGB and the Scottish boards' transfer schemes.
Amendment No. 233ZB seems to be designed specifically to deny the National Grid company the benefit of any tax losses or capital allowances attributable to the business that it will inherit. The National Grid will indeed, as the noble Lord reminded us, be owned by the area boards but its tax position must be derived from the CEGB. Quite simply, it is inheriting part of the CEGB's trade and for that reason the amendment would hit unfairly on it.
I hope that that explanation clarifies the situation and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am, as always, grateful to the noble Baroness for her courteous explanation of what the Government have in mind, but I still do not have a definition of what 'parts of trades" means. I can understand that the CEGB carries on a trade. It may carry on a number of trades. It may carry on the trade of generating or transmitting, or trades of which we know not. The Inland Revenue makes a clear distinction between one trade and another and it has some perfectly clear ideas—or reasonably clear ideas, though they are subject to dispute from time to time—on whether trade A is the same as trade B. What I have never seen in any tax legislation is the phrase "parts of trades".

459
If your trade is generating or transmitting, that is your trade. I do not understand how there can be part of a transmitting trade or part of a generating trade; or, indeed, part of any other trade. If the noble Baroness could enlighten me I should be most grateful. Perhaps she could also define how the legislation will be determined for the guidance of the courts and, indeed, the Inland Revenue. How is a trade to be split up among its different parts? I do not believe that anyone—except perhaps the Inland Revenue—would say that the CEGB is carrying on one trade. The Inland Revenue might say that on the basis of the general operations of the CEGB, but I do not see why, when the CEGB is split up between successor companies, there cannot be clearly identified trades which would carry with them, as is the normal practice when a company is split up, an apportionment of tax losses which refer to the trades that are apportioned to the different successor bodies. What is the definition of "parts of trades"? Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell the Committee.
I do not particularly press my second amendment regarding the National Grid. It seemed to me that the National Grid might be handing over to the area boards some transforming facilities which might be a transforming trade—if that is a trade under the definition of the Inland Revenue—and that could be usefully put into paragraph 1(2) of the schedule. However, I do not insist and I accept that there may be problems in incorporating my amendment.
My main amendment, Amendment No. 233ZA, seeks from the Government, in proper advice, the definition of "parts of trades" and nothing I have heard from the noble Baroness gives us that definition. I shall be grateful if she can assist us.
Baroness Hooper: I am not entirely clear why the noble Lord is having so much difficulty with this amendment. Regarding the CEGB and the two generating companies, it seems that there is a case where part of a trade is being passed on. Nevertheless, I am assured that it is not a question of splitting up individual trades such as transmission. What we are doing is simply splitting up the CEGB's aggregate trading position. I hope that helps.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Quite obviously I have not explained myself clearly to the noble Baroness. From the point of view of the Inland Revenue, the CEGB may carry on several trades or it may carry on one. I suspect that in splitting up the Inland Revenue will decide that there are several trades. I put myself in the position of the Inland Revenue and say that there is the trade of generating; there is the trade of transmitting; and there is probably the trade of selling electricity to industrial customers direct from the generating facility. These are trades and not parts of them. I have a certain experience of tax law. These reconstructions are very complicated in tax terms both in the private and public sector.
I can understand where a trade is transferred and then it is for the Inland Revenue to decide whether it is the same trade as the successor body indulges in and therefore the tax loss carried forward can work. If the Inland Revenue decide against that then
460
the tax loss carry forward does not work. What I cannot understand is "or parts of trades" because in my experience the Inland Revenue has no experience of such provisions. I have been involved in many reconstructions and I would have loved to have had parts of a trade split between company A and company B. Unfortunately, I have been unable to do this. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me a little more.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord has made himself perfectly clear on this matter. I recognise that his objection is to "or parts of trades". I shall look into the problem again and refer to it later, should further clarification be necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The Income and Corporation Taxes Act does not refer to "or parts of trades". If the Government are now going to write into the Bill those words then they will have to write them into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. The Treasury may feel that that is perhaps not the right thing to do. I am trying to help the Government over this matter so that they do not open up a tremendous railway channel through which we can run when we are considering the reconstruction of private companies. It is in a spirit of total co-operation with the Government that I make these observations. I wonder whether the noble Baroness wishes to add anything to what I have said.
Baroness Hooper: All the provisions in the schedule are the outcome and product of full consultation with the Inland Revenue. It agreed to this provision and to the schedule as a whole. I am not sure whether that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It gives me great encouragement for my future professional activities. If the words "or parts of trades" are admitted into this Bill, then we shall have to admit the same into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. That will give great comfort to all kinds of people who are my friends. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness might wish to reconsider this point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 112, line 23, leave out second ("of").
The noble Earl said: This is rather an important amendment. I ask the Committee to read Schedule 11 at page 112, line 23. The first line of paragraph 1(1)(a) contains the word "of" twice. The second "of" is entirely superfluous. This amendment deletes the second "of" in order to put the matter right.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Why does the noble Earl believe this to be a very important amendment?
The Earl of Dundee: For the simple reason that every government amendment is important.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233ZB not moved.]
2.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 232ZC:
Page 112, line 39, leave out ("unallowed").
The noble Lord said: The question of unallowed tax losses is an interesting one. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell me exactly what is meant by "unallowed" as opposed to "allowed tax losses". I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 enables tax losses and capital expenditure to be apportioned among the successor companies in accordance with the terms of a transferor's transfer scheme. The legislation actually uses the term "unallowed tax losses". That expression is defined in sub-paragraph (5). That term encompasses, in laymen's terms, losses and other tax reliefs which are allowable for tax purposes but have not yet, taking the present, actually been allowed. In other words, they have not yet been absorbed by taxable profits. It is because such amounts have not been allowed to any person that they are to be apportioned among the relevant successor companies. In turn, this is a further strand in ensuring that continuity can be brought to the tax affairs of the industry. It may be that the amendment is based on the assumption that an "unallowed" tax loss is one which would not ordinarily be allowable to any person. I can assure the noble Lord that that is not the case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Sub-paragraph (5) to which we shall return in later amendments defines "unallowed tax losses", but the tax losses which will be transferred or apportioned under sub-paragraph (2) seem in theory to lie outside the unallowed tax losses which are defined in sub-paragraph (5). In other words, there are tax losses which are putative tax losses, which I think is what the noble Baroness was saying. They may have been not allowed because they have not been taken against profits but are putatively taken against profits.
It is a curious expression to say that these are "unallowed" because "unallowed" is a past participle and means that they have not been allowed. If the Government were to say in amending the Bill that they were not allowed for certain purposes, or have not been allowed for certain purposes or can be allowed under certain circumstances, that would make the whole matter a little clearer. However, I shall not pursue it because I do not think it is a matter on which the noble Baroness can helpfully comment further. I offer this as a query which tax lawyers will have when they come to look at the provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 233ZD:
Page 112, line 48, ("in") insert ("or were acquired by").
The noble Lord said: This is a small drafting amendment to sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the schedule.
462
There is a possibility that in the transactions that take place in the whole concept of a transfer scheme may be cash transactions between one successor company and another. We have already established that in the case of paying for tax loss carry forwards there will be a cash transaction between the area boards and the CEGB, as the noble Baroness explained to my noble friend Lord Peston. In a qualifying transfer or two or more successive qualifying transfers—we can see as we go through the Bill how transfers can be changed in one way or another—there may be acquisitions as opposed to transfers which could be made an acquisition—a cash payment for a certain asset which has allowable tax losses. I offer this as a technical and complex drafting amendment for the Government to consider. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the spirit in which he has moved this amendment, and those preceding it. Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule applies in a situation where any assets or liabilities of an existing body in England and Wales which are transferred by the Bill to a successor company become vested in that body by virtue of a transfer from another existing body (or two more successive transfers between existing bodies). In other words, it applies where assets and liabilities became vested (for tax purposes) in the Electricity Council some time before they were acquired by the body by which they were transferred on the transfer date. This provision therefore has the effect that the particular assets and liabilities will be treated as having been assets and liabilities of the relevant successor company since,
"the time when they became vested in the original transferor"
that is, the first existing body to whom the assets and liabilities were vested.
Property, rights and liabilities which are, "acquired by" a person will, of necessity, be "vested in" that person. In the present context, there is no material distinction between the two expressions. Accordingly, the insertion of the words "or were acquired by" would seem to have no effect. It would, however, make the drafting of paragraph 1(3)(a) confusing and create an inconsistency between that provision and paragraph 1(1)(c), which also speaks of the time when property, rights and liabilities became "vested in" a body. I think that the important factor here is consistency.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept the fact that perhaps there should have been a consequential amendment, or that I should have moved an amendment as regards paragraph 1(1)(c) which would have been consistent with the amendment I now move. However, I do not think that I have quite managed to get my point across to the noble Baroness.
There will be transfer schemes which may or may not be modified. Indeed, they can be of various natures. However, the main object of such schemes—and I understand what the noble Baroness said—will be to vest in plcs certain assets, rights and liabilities of public corporations. That is perfectly understood.

463
However, there is a situation which could arise at the point of a modification of a transfer scheme, or indeed as regards the transfer scheme itself. For example, the grid may have to make a payment to National Power for the transforming station which is at present within the site of the Hinkley Point nuclear Magnox, AGR and subsequently PWR. In other words, there is a transforming station inside the perimeter of the site. The legal complications of dealing with just who owns that station are most difficult. Indeed lawyers and other people are spending many thousands of pounds in determining how that will happen.
In such a situation it could be that the grid would say to National Power, "We cannot agree on the legal basis of the lease"—that is what they are discussing now—"we should like to pay you a certain sum of money". At that point, in my view, it would become an acquisition of an asset. That is the point to which my amendment addresses itself. Such a situation could arise all over England and Wales and possibly in Scotland. It is purely a drafting point; I am not saying that it is a point of principle. I am merely trying to help with the drafting to ensure that nothing is left out.
Baroness Hooper: I think that in the circumstances I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue. I shall of course look into the matter to ensure that we are confident that our drafting covers the point referred to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to write to me on the subject. But if she feels that I have a substantive point here, perhaps she will return to the matter at a later stage when she can put forward her view by way of amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 233ZM:
Page 113, line 13, after second ("period") insert ("with for subsequent material changes").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a technical amendment. I apologise to the Minister for speaking to a number of technical amendments on tax problems. We are dealing with the final accounting period which is the last complete accounting period of the relevant body. We have now come to the end of the financial year 1988–89, and we have probably come to the end of the last complete accounting period before vesting.
It may well be that the Government fail to get their Bill through and that there will be another complete accounting period ending on 5th April 1990. Let us assume that the Government manage to get their Bill through Committee and its remaining stages in this place and another place. Here we are in late June discussing events that have taken place and are recorded in a balance sheet at end of March/early April of this year. The questions that arise from that arise in every commercial restructuring transaction in which I and others have
464
been involved. What happens to post-balance sheet events? The balance sheet, as the Committee will understand, is a photograph of a financial situation at midnight at a point of time at the end of a year. That photograph is a still photograph. It is not a movie. Many things may happen subsequently.
Some allowance—I have argued this point previously—should be made, in determining how the tax loss carry forward should be treated, for material post-balance sheet events. Let me give an example. If tomorrow all the nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom blew up, which Heaven forfend, that would be a material post-balance sheet event so far as the CEGB is concerned. The tax losses resulting from that would be enormous. It is odd that no provision—I use an extreme case to demonstrate my point—is made in the schedule for such material post-balance sheet events.
I hope that I have made my point as clear as is possible. I could illustrate it with thousands of other examples. I have taken the most extreme illustration to make the point. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 1 of the schedule gives effect to the taxation rules in that paragraph in relation to accounting periods beginning after the final accounting period. The term "the final accounting period" as used in paragraph 1 is defined as the last accounting period of the Electricity Council or, in the case of an existing body in Scotland, of that body, ending before the transfer date. The effect of the amendment would be to extend the definition to
"the last complete accounting period with adjustments for subsequent material changes"
ending before the transfer date.
I feel sure that the Committee will have appreciated by now that the definition of "the final accounting period" is a definition of a period of time. Tacking on to a description of a period of time a reference to adjustments for subsequent material changes does not produce a sensible result.
I can, however, reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on two points. First, any adjustments to the substance of the accounts for the final accounting period made after the end of that period will be taken into account for the purposes of the rules set out in paragraph 1, if relevant, or for that matter for any other purposes. The provisions on continuity of accounts which we discussed on Monday in relation to Clause 72 will actually facilitate that, by allowing the successor companies in their accounts to treat things done by their predecessors as having been done by themselves. Secondly, there is no question of an adjustment to the accounting period itself. On the assumption that the transfer date is 1st January 1990, the first accounting period to which paragraph 1 would apply would be the 12 months beginning on 1st April 1989.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden said on Monday that any material events taking place after 1st April 1989 either to the balance sheet or to the profit and loss account would, by virtue of Clause 72, be fully dealt with in the opening

465
accounts of the successor companies. So I had hoped that that had been made clear.
The question of asset valuation will be raised with the boards during discussion on capital structure later this year and any adjustments will be reflected in the opening accounts of the successor companies and the appropriate prospectus. I hope that this information has been helpful to the noble Lord.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, her reply has been helpful. On reflection, my amendment was in the wrong place and she was quite right to point that out. I apologise for that. Nevertheless, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, said, I have great difficulty in reconciling the closing accounts of the previous or existing bodies with the opening accounts of the successor bodies. The opening accounts of the successor bodies will be at midnight plus one second, after the closing accounts of the existing bodies which will be at midnight minus one second, or virtually instantaneously.
There is nothing that the opening accounts of the successor bodies can do other than reflect the position as it was at midnight when the last accounting period closed. Any attempt to alter the accounts at that crucial point would run up against all sorts of problems of accounting principles and practice.
It is the case that post-balance sheet events in the case of a commercial company can be commented upon before the accounts are signed so that any diminution in the value of assets—that is really what I am talking about—or any material change in the profit and loss situation would be reflected at the time when the accounts are signed and produced to the general meeting of the company.
After what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said the other day, I do not quite see how that will happen in this instance. But no doubt the noble Baroness can enlighten me on the procedure that will be followed. Nevertheless, my point remains that we are dealing here with tax loss carry forwards; tax loss carry forwards are determined at the date at which the balance sheet is struck. The tax computations are submitted on the basis of an end year balance sheet and the Revenue receive the tax computations on the balance sheet as adjusted for all kinds of things as at the end of the year at which the balance sheet is struck.
All I am concerned to do is to make sure that material changes which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, and I discussed the other day are reflected in any tax loss carried forward and which may be apportioned to one successor body or another.
Baroness Hooper: I must reiterate that any adjustments to the substance of the accounts for the electricity boards will be taken into consideration in the opening accounts of the successor companies. These will show those portions of the closing accounts inherited by the appropriate successor and indicate any material changes that have taken place
466
since 31st March 1989. I believe that we have made it clear that we propose that the opening accounts and the flotation documentation will give equal exposure; in other words, they will go side by side with current cost and historic account information. That should make the position clear, both in relation to the public sector inheritance and the private sector practices to be undertaken in the future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think we have got about as far as we can get on this. Current cost accounting is wholly relevant to the point I am trying to make. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will study our exchanges, and if she has any further comment on the questions I have asked perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me. We shall consider whether to return to this point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 233ZE:
Page 113, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful for a simple explanation from the Government as regards exactly how Section 512(2) of the 1988 Act has relevance to construing the terms in this heading. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I believe the noble Lord is referring to Section 511(2), not Section 512(2).
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is correct, and I apologise to the noble Baroness:
Baroness Hooper: I would have been in something of a dilemma had it been otherwise. Section 511(2) has the effect that any trade carried on by an area board or the generating board is treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as part of a trade carried on by the Electricity Council; that any property, rights or liabilities of such a board is treated for those purposes as property, rights or liabilities of the Electricity Council; and that anything done by or to such a board is deemed for those purposes to have been done by or to the Electricity Council.
The Committee may have noticed that Section 511(1) to (3) and (6) are proposed for repeal in Schedule 16. The Committee may have thought that the repeal would be effected on the transfer date, when the electricity industry undertakings are transferred from the statutory bodies to the successor bodies. I can understand why that may have been the impression, but I have to say that is not how we intend to proceed.
I remind the Committee that Clause 63(6) excludes from the Electricity Council transfer scheme the rights and liabilities of the council with respect to corporation tax. Our intention is that the council should wind up all pre-transfer date corporation tax affairs. In order to achieve that, we have to do two things. First, we have to ensure that the corporation tax rights and liabilities remain with the council—that is achieved by Clause 63(6). Secondly, we have to ensure that the council remains

467
the taxpayer in respect of pre-transfer date corporation tax affairs until these are all wound up. That we propose to achieve by simply not commencing the repeal of Section 511 until that has been done.
Thus, when paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 comes into force on the transfer date, Section 511(2) will still be in force. Unless that subsection is disregarded, paragraph 1(1) will have no effect as regards the industry in England and Wales. That is because, for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, the area boards and the generating board do not carry on trades and do not have any property, rights or liabilities. Neither would the CEGB have its own unallowed tax losses and expenditure for apportionment in accordance with paragraph 1(2). Similarly, the provisions contained in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) would not have the intended effect.
To summarise, without the lines referred to in this amendment, paragraph 1 would simply be meaningless.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Some of us would say that paragraph 1 is meaningless anyway. Leaving that aside, I shall read carefully what she has said. She has given a very full explanation. It may be that I shall wish to come back to this matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233ZF not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 233ZG:
Page 114, line 14, leave out ("A/B") and insert ("A/B-C").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 233ZG I also speak to Amendment No. 233ZH. The amendments deal with the formula which controls the division between the successor bodies of the unallowed capital losses of the Electricity Council.
It seems to me that in this formula the greater the unallowed capital losses of the successor bodies the more they will benefit from unallowed capital losses of the Electricity Council. Therefore the object of the amendment is to introduce a corrective element to make sure that the apportionment is fairer. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Again I must ask the Committee to bear with a rather technical explanation.
Paragraph 4(2) of the schedule provides for the division of the unallowed capital losses of the industry in England and Wales among the existing bodies. The objective of the amendments appears to be to reduce the amount of losses to be divided in this way and then inherited by the successor companies. They do so by providing for the deduction from the unallowed capital losses which have accrued to the industry before the transfer date of an amount equal to the unrealised (and, therefore,
468
untaxed) gains made by the industry prior to that date. The intention seems to be that only this reduced amount of losses should be inherited by the successor companies.
At first sight it may seem fair that the amount of capital losses inherited by a successor company should be reduced by the amount of untaxed capital gains which it inherits. However, I must remind the Committee that capital gains are charged to tax only when they are realised when an asset is old (just as capital losses are allowable for tax purposes only when realised). The successor companies will therefore pay tax on those untaxed gains as and when the assets on which those gains have accrued are disposed of and the gains are realised.
It would be wrong in principle for the amount of (but as yet unallowed) capital losses inherited by a successor company to be reduced by the amount of unrealised gains which it inherits. It would be contrary to one of the fundamental principles underlying Schedule 11, which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognises, if we were to accept the amendments. It would have the result that the successor companies would be placed in a worse position than the existing bodies. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation and will accordingly withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I am not entirely satisfied because I do not think that that accords with normal commercial practice. Nevertheless I do not wish to detain the Committee at this late stage. I shall read her comments and if necessary come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the am0endment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 233ZH to 233ZL not moved.]
2.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 11, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, would like to comment on paragraph 8 of this schedule. I did not wish to move the amendment but I am rather perplexed by this paragraph of the schedule. The whole question of the extinguishment of liabilities and the restriction of tax losses baffles me slightly. I did not wish to put my doubts in the form of an amendment but if the opposite Benches are able to help me on exactly what that means, I should be most grateful.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): Even though the noble Lord has not moved Amendment No. 233ZK I shall say a few words on this matter because I think that it is important to understand this section. The amendment would result in the application of Section 400 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and could both place the Scottish electricity supply industry in an uncompetitive position and disturb the necessary balance between the north of Scotland and the south of Scotland companies.

469
Where the extinguishment of debt produces an increase in reserves which is not applied to the issue of shares, the consequent reduction of inherited tax losses which would flow from the application of Section 400 of the ICT Act could result in an overhang of negative tax losses to carry forward into the private sector.
We believe that that would be a wholly abnormal burden to place on newly privatised companies and would place them at a competitive disadvantage. The disapplication of Section 400 of the ICT Act of 1988 is well precedented in the British Steel Act.
The point on which the noble Lord might like to have an explanation is the one which relates to the arrangements. As it stands, paragraph 8 of Schedule 11 instead gives the Secretary of State a discretion to determine the extent of the tax losses to be written off following the extinguishment of the Scottish successor companies' debt under Clause 76 of the Bill, which we have already debated. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to apportion the remaining tax losses between the Scottish successor companies. This provision is necessary in particular to ensure equitable treatment for the two Scottish electricity companies once ownership of the Scottish nuclear company has been transferred to them.
The point here is that the successor to the South of Scotland Electricity Board has a majority stake and the North Board has a minority stake. If we did not provide for that situation with the nuclear company being jointly owned on a majority and minority stake basis, it would be quite difficult because of the differential tax treatment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister. Does it mean that the North Board when privatised will have the benefit of some of the tax loss carry forwards which would properly accrue to the South Board, which at the moment is the 100 per cent. owner of the nuclear plants in Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes; the situation is that the new nuclear company will be jointly owned in the ratio 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. In arranging the tax loss position, which will be beneficial to the Scottish companies as a whole, that is indeed the case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The normal rules whereby such losses are not available other than on a wholly grouped basis will not apply. By "wholly grouped" I mean from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This question is related to the fact that the North Bord—which will have tax losses itself—will be able to benefit under these arrangements. If we did not make a provision in this paragraph it would not be able so to do.
Schedule 11, as amended agreed to.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Abolition of central guarantee fund]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 233ZN:
Page 62, line 21, leave out ("the appropriate proportions") and insert ("proportions decided by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I speak also to Amendment No. 233ZP. As always with this class of amendment, one is seeking clarification as well as making a substantive point. There is nothing between us on the main question of the abolition of the central guarantee fund. It ceases to be appropriate; and one is simply going through a procedure to deal with that. I take it that the fund is in credit at this moment. We are therefore talking about significant or positive sums of money.
Essentially the Government would like to see the generating and area boards split themselves up; but, failing that, the Secretary of State can do the job. Therefore the Bill provides for this slightly elliptical procedure. It defines something called appropriate proportions and then agrees that appropriate proportions are whatever the groups agree to do, or, failing that, whatever the Secretary of State says.
Our amendment simplifies the procedure. It simply provides that the Secretary of State undertakes the job in the first place. It seems to us to be slightly more sensible. I cannot see any grounds why one would want the generating and area boards to sort this out and agree among themselves. It is an obvious task that, taking advice, the Secretary of State could do, and there would be no fuss whatsoever. In the way that we have put forward our amendment, it provides for a slightly more sensible way of achieving exactly what the Government have in mind.
To reiterate my earlier point, as I always do: we are participating solely to help the Government produce a better Bill. I commend this amendment to Members of the Committee.
Baroness Hooper: Again, I welcome the spirit in which the amendment is moved. Perhaps it would help if I said a few words about the background to this clause.
The central guarantee fund was set up by the Electricity Act 1957 to guarantee the payment of interest on, or the redemption or repayment of, any British electricity stock, government advances or temporary or other loans, or for the repayment of any sums issued in fulfilment of Treasury guarantees. The CEGB and the area boards have contributed annually to the fund, which—I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peston—currently stands at about £16 million. It is therefore indeed in credit.
After privatisation, the boards will have no recourse to government borrowing or Treasury guarantees. And, as we have discussed under the last clause, the rights and liabilities under the terms of issue of British electricity stock will be transferred to the Treasury. The reason for the fund's existence will therefore have completely disappeared. I realise that the noble Lord recognises that.
Clause 88 therefore provides for the fund to be wound up and redistributed to the CEGB and the area boards. The boards are allowed to agree the proportions in which the fund is to be redistributed, provided they do so not less than four weeks before the transfer date. If they have not agreed the proportions by then, the Secretary of State will

471
determine the division. Indeed, it has already been agreed that the boards will share out the £16 million in the fund on the basis of the sums which they originally paid into the fund.
The amendment as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would mean that it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to decide how the fund should be divided entirely. But the boards will be those who have all the records and information about their contributions to the fund, and that is the material necessary to enable them to agree the division quickly among themselves. We therefore believe that it is only if they cannot agree that the Secretary of State should intervene and make the division himself. The clause as it stands offers the simplest and most straightforward route for dealing with this redistribution.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. However, I apologise because I have one other question that I forgot to ask for the record just as a matter of history. Does she know whether the fund has ever been used? Did it ever serve any purpose other than a psychological one? That is just to complete the record. I do not need an answer at this moment. Did I also understand her to say that the agreement referred to in subsection (2)(a) of the clause in a sense is already agreed? We are about to pass into law the need to agree, but I thought the noble Baroness said that they already have agreed essentially to get back what they put in plus interest. I thought she said that that is what will happen. So in a sense my concern and in a curious way her concern are both irrelevant. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that too.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, it is my understanding that the method of how the redistribution will be made is the subject of agreement. I accept the noble Lord's point.
Lord Peston: On the implicit assumption that at some point I shall be told briefly about the history of the fund, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233ZP not moved].
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Parliamentary disqualification]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 233ZQ:
Page 62, line 34, leave out from ("1989)") to end of line 36.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to seek some degree of clarification as to who or what kind of people are being disqualified. The clause reads:
"Director of a successor company (within the meaning of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989)"—
which is the current Bill. One wonders whether the words, following the word "being", which we seek to leave out, really add anything or are they simply a repetition of what is already there?
It is possible that for legal reasons one always adds the words "being a director nominated" etc., but do
472
those words starting "being a director" add anything to the earlier phrase "director of a successor company"? My reading of it is that they do not. The amendment simply asks for clarification.
3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment which enables me to explain the purpose behind Clause 89. The constitutional practice is that Members of Parliament and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly should not hold paid offices in the Crown's patronage. The successor companies will be formed by the Crown and, while they remain owned by the Crown—that is to say, while their shares are held by the Crown—their directors may be nominated, appointed or reappointed by a person acting on behalf of the Crown. Clause 89 therefore provides that a director of any of the successor companies appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown, should not be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would go further. It would prevent future directors of the successor companies—directors appointed by the companies themselves, and in accordance with normal Companies Act requirements, and not appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown should not be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I cannot see that it would be right to infringe the rights of persons who will be successor company directors in this way. Directors of other private sector companies are eligible to be Members of Parliament or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I fail to see why, once the electricity supply industry is in the private sector, directors of successor companies not appointed by a Minister of the Crown should not enjoy the same rights as the vast majority of other company directors.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether the words in brackets added anything. They do because they restrict the meaning of the preceding words to the directors who are nominated or appointed by the Crown.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that reply. I could rise to the bait and begin a fractious argument about Members of Parliament being directors of newly privatised companies. However, I do not believe that Members of the Committee would welcome that exercise in the middle of Friday afternoon. I should like to go on record as saying that I could put forward a good case for saying that it would be slightly inappropriate for Members of Parliament to be directors of privatised companies, at least in the early days. I believe that my noble friend Lord Williams would join me in that. I appreciate that the noble Earl was slightly taunting me and I refuse to be drawn on the issue. I have made the appropriate point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Construction of references to property, rights and liabilities]:
[Amendment No. 233ZR not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Other interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 233ZS:
Page 63, line 45, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is another example of our anxiety to improve the Bill. Our reading of the relevant line is that the Government meant "the" rather than "a"; the definite article rather than the indefinite.
In anticipation that the Government may have introduced precisely this amendment we tabled it in this form. It is a drafting amendment which we commend to the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Williams, for their close scrutiny of the draftsmanship of the Bill for which my noble friend Lady Hooper and I are always extremely grateful, even though we may not always be able to agree. In this case the proposed amendment would ensure consistency with the drafting used in Clause 63 where "transmission company" first appears. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92 [Directions for preserving security of electricity supplies etc.]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendsments Nos 233A to 233J:
Page 64, line 9, leave out from ("may") to ("give") in line 10.
Page 64, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("a").
Page 64 line 10, after ("person") insert ("to whom this section applies").
Page 64 line 10, after ("general") insert ("or particular").
Page 64, line 19, leave out ("after consultation with a person to whom this section applies").
Page 64, line 20, leave out ("that") and insert ("a").
Page 64, line 20, after ("person") insert ("to whom this section applies").
Page 64, leave out line 28.
Page 64, line 38, after ("supplies") insert ("or endanger the safety of the public").
The noble Lord said: These amendments to Clause 92 are consequential on Amendment No. 129B which was accepted by the Committee at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes past three o'clock.

  CONTINENTAL SHELF: MODERN SURVEY
  CONTINENTAL SHELF: MODERN SURVEY